Franke v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

MOSMAN, J.

OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge John v. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [38], recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) [35] in the amount of $697.25 should be GRANTED. No objections to the F&R were filed.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the 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 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [38] as my own opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge