IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARY S.!, Plaintiff, Case No. 6:17-cv-01084-JE . OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On July 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [22], recommending that I AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision and DISMISS this action. Neither 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.

(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal

' In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case. 1 — OPINION AND ORDER

conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas vy. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(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.

(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderk’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [22] in full. ! AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision and DISMISS this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 5. day of September, 2019. Wor MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge

2 OPINION AND ORDER