From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oxford v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 7, 2018
No. 1:16-cv-01763-JE (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:16-cv-01763-JE

02-07-2018

BARBARA ANN OXFORD, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On December 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [15], recommending the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED and this case REMANDED for further proceedings. No party objected.

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 Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [15] as my own opinion. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this case REMANDED for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Oxford v. Berryhill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 7, 2018
No. 1:16-cv-01763-JE (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2018)
Case details for

Oxford v. Berryhill

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA ANN OXFORD, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner…

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

Date published: Feb 7, 2018

Citations

No. 1:16-cv-01763-JE (D. Or. Feb. 7, 2018)

Citing Cases

Marie B. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

A limitation to one- to two-step tasks "is materially more restrictive" than a limitation to "simple tasks"…