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

JOHNNY RAY B.4, Case No, 3:18-cv-00618-MK ORDER Plaintiff oo om □ □□ Vv. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. AIKEN, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) (doc. 18) recommending that the final decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application benefits be affirmed. The matter 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 28 US.C, § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1981), cert denied,

(1982). ' Tn the interest of privacy, this order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party or parties in this case.

PAGE 1 -ORDER

Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the F&R (doc. 20), and the Commissioner has filed a timely response to those objections (doc. 21). Thus, I review the F&R de novo. Having considered the record and the arguments offered by the parties, I find no error in Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s opinion. Thus, I adopt the F&R (doc. 18) in its entirety. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This action is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this fl boy peetiey

□□□ Aiken United States District Judges

PAGE 2 -ORDER