IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PENDLETON DIVISION

DAWN C,, . . Case No. 2:18-cv-00194-CL ORDER Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke has filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 17) recommending that the decision of Commissioner be affirmed. This case is now before me. See

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge’s F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge’s report. See

(b)(); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

''In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same designation for a non-governmental party's immediate family member.

Dean 1 aADNnETP

Business Machines, Inc.,

, 1813 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied,

(1982), Plaintiff has filed timely objections (doc. 19) to the F&R and defendant's have filed a timely response to those objections. (doc. 20} Thus, this Court reviews the F&R de novo. Having reviewed the objections as well as the entire file of this case, the Court finds no error in Judge Clarke’s F&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the F&R (doc. 17) in its entirety. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this action is dismissed. It is so ORDERED this 18th day of September, 2019. Chess ben) Aiken United States District Judge

Pann 9_ ORDER