Madsen v. Colvin

Full title: CAROL MADSEN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN L. COLVIN, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

Date published: Jun 30, 2014

Case No. 3:13-cv-819-CL (D. Or. Jun. 30, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-819-CL

06-30-2014

CAROL MADSEN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN L. COLVIN, Defendant.

OWEN M. PANNER

ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed Findings and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C) ; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Findings and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner' finding that plaintiff is not disabled. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation (#22) is adopted. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE