From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rippe v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 14, 2013
3:11-CV-1019-PK (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2013)

Opinion

3:11-CV-1019-PK

01-14-2013

JOSEPH RIPPE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

TIM WILBORN Wilborn Law Office, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff S. AMANDA MARSHALL United States Attorney ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney DAVID MORADO Regional Chief Counsel DAVID J. BURDETT Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration Attorneys for Defendant


ORDER

TIM WILBORN
Wilborn Law Office, P.C.

Attorney for Plaintiff S. AMANDA MARSHALL
United States Attorney
ADRIAN L. BROWN
Assistant United States Attorney
DAVID MORADO
Regional Chief Counsel
DAVID J. BURDETT
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration

Attorneys for Defendant BROWN , Judge.

On November 19, 2012, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#22) recommending the Court REVERSE the Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, and his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pursuant to Title XVI of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. § 1381-83(f), and GRANT the Commissioner's Motion (#17) to Remand for further administrative proceedings.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation and opposed the Motion to Remand for further administrative proceedings. The matter is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).

This Court has reviewed the record de novo, including Plaintiff's Objections. The Court concludes Plaintiff's Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#22) in its entirety and GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion (#17) to Remand for further administrative proceedings. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner's decision and REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rippe v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jan 14, 2013
3:11-CV-1019-PK (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2013)
Case details for

Rippe v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH RIPPE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jan 14, 2013

Citations

3:11-CV-1019-PK (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2013)