ROBERT L. WILDE, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDERACCEPTINGREPORT& RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, United States District Court Judge.
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) of the Honorable Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge, entered January 22, 2015.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review, ” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by February 8, 2015. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation(s) that (ECF No. 11) MOTION for Reversal and/or Remand be denied. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that (ECF No. 16) Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment be granted.
Therefore, the Court has determined that Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reversal and/or Remand [Doc #11] is denied.
IT IS FURTTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary ...