Stevens v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

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

KEVIN S.,1 No. 6:18-cv-00269-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

Brent Wells Harder Wells Baron & Manning Willamette Street Eugene, OR 97401 James Moller P.O. Box 1368 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Attorneys for Plaintiff Renata Gowie United States Attorney’s Office District of Oregon 1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Jeffrey Staples In the interest of privacy, this Judgment uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the non-governmental party.

Lisa Goldoftas Office of General Counsel Social Security Administration Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 16, 2019, in which he recommends that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner’s decision for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now 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); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Commissioner objects to the Findings and Recommendation because the ALJ’s errors were harmless. Objections to F&R, ECF 25. The Court carefully considered the Commissioner’s objections and concludes that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. /// /// /// /// CONCLUSION The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [23]. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:D ecem ber 2 3, 2019.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge