Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:07-104-KKC.
March 17, 2008
ORDER
The plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the defendant to deny Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Consistent with local practice, this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On February 11, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed his report and recommendation, concluding that the decision of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") to deny the plaintiff benefits is supported by substantial evidence.
Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections with the Court to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation waives the right to appeal. See, Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Nevertheless, the Court, having examined the record and having made a de novo determination, is in agreement with the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court, being otherwise fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that
(1) the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [DE #14] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;
(2) the defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE #12] is GRANTED;
(3) the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [DE #10] is DENIED; and
(4) judgment in favor of the defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.