Summary
remanding for an award of benefits where the ALJ failed to credit the opinion of a treating physician, and where the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand if the treating physician's opinion evidence were credited as true
Summary of this case from Fairbanks v. ColvinOpinion
No. 6:14-cv-01410-PK
10-19-2015
OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,
On September 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [23], recommending that the Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits should be REVERSED AND REMANDED for the calculation and payment of benefits. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [23] as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Judge