IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WADDAH S.', Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-00631-SU . OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On July 26, 2019, Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”’) [25], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED. 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

Th 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. OPINION AND ORDER

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

(b)(1)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Sullivan’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [25] in full. I AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this wees September, 2019. ~ MWA Uf MICHAEL W. MQSMAN Chief United State District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER