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

HANH L.,! No. 3:17-cv-01613-JE Plaintiff, V. OPINION AND ORDER ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., On July 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [19], recommending that I REVERSE the Commissioner’s decision and REMAND this case for further proceedings. Neither party filed objections to the F&R. 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

' Tn 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

court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 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 vy. 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 Jelderks’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [19] as my own opinion. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this ZX. day of September, 2019. . fo

Chief United “ae Digtrict Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER