Summary
affirming the ALJ's finding that the claimant was not credible but noting that it was inappropriate for the ALJ to use the claimant's unsuccessful work attempt to undermine the claimant's credibility
Summary of this case from Jalexis O. v. BerryhillOpinion
No. CV 09-6030-PK.
March 30, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 4, 2010, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings and Recommendation ("F R") (#16) in the above-captioned case recommending that I AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision. No objections to the F R were filed.
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 of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or 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 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F. 3d 1114, 1121 (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 of the magistrate judge's F R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F R (#16) as my own opinion. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.