IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANTONINIJA S-G,1 No. 6:23-cv-01969-JR

Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

BAGGIO, District Judge: On November 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”, ECF 15), recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner of Social Security’s (the “Commissioner’s”) final decision denying Plaintiff Antoninija S-G’s (“Plaintiff’s”) application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner objected. This Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s F&R. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections.

(b)(1)(C). If a party objects, the court “shall make a de

1 In the interest of privacy, this Opinion and Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last name of the nongovernmental party in this case. novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” Jd. The court is not, however, 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. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2023). While the level of scrutiny that the court applies to its F&R review depends on whether a party has filed objections, the court is free to accept, reyect, or modify any part of the F&R.

(b)(1)(C); see also Thomas, 474 USS. at 154. The Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s F&R. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF 15). Therefore, the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff's application for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act 1s AFFIRMED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 19) day of January, 2025.

Amy M. Bagg AMY M.BAGGIO United States District Judge

2 — OPINION AND ORDER