JAMES REDDEN, District Judge
In Findings and Recommendation dated March 6, 2009 (Docket no. 22), Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart found that the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed. The matter is now before me. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the District Court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 US 920 (1982). This district court is not, however, required to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which the parties do not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 US 140, 149 (1985); United State v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir 2003).
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. I have, therefore, reviewed de novo the relevant portions of Judge Stewart's ruling. I agree with Judge Stewart's analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, I adopt Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendations as my own opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.