From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Finney v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Aug 1, 2011
3:10-CV-6030-HU (D. Or. Aug. 1, 2011)

Opinion

3:10-CV-6030-HU.

August 1, 2011


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel filed his Findings and Recommendation on July 8, 2011. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. See § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation #18. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Finney v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Aug 1, 2011
3:10-CV-6030-HU (D. Or. Aug. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Finney v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ESTELLE LYN FINNEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Aug 1, 2011

Citations

3:10-CV-6030-HU (D. Or. Aug. 1, 2011)