Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-73.
February 19, 2008
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 13] dated January 13, 2008, to which neither party filed objections. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, failure to file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation permits the District Court to review the recommendation under the standards that the District Court believes are appropriate, and under these circumstances, the parties' right to de novo review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
Accordingly, because no objections have been filed, this report and recommendation ("R R") will be reviewed for clear error. Upon review of the R R and the record, it is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 13] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED.
For reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 13], this Court ORDERS that the Claimant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] be DENIED because the ALJ's determination that Claimant's subjective symptoms were not "entirely credible" complied with the legal mandates of Craig v. Charter, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996), and was supported by substantial evidence. Also, the ALJ thoroughly and properly considered Claimant's depression. Additionally, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] is GRANTED for the same reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's R R [Doc. 13].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit true copies of this Order to all counsel of record.