ORDER

P.K. HOLMES, III, Chief District Judge.

The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 14) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. The Court has conducted a careful review of the findings and recommendations and of the timely objections (Doc. 15) filed by Plaintiff. After reviewing the record de novo as to Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds the Magistrate's reasoning to be sound and further finds that Plaintiff's objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrate's findings.

While the Court believes that this case presents a close issue as to whether the ALJ adequately developed the record, the Plaintiff cannot prevail on this issue as he in any event failed to show that further development of the record would likely have changed the outcome—in other words, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that he was prejudiced by the ALJ's failure to more fully develop the record in this case. See Shannon v. Chater, 54 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 1995) (declining to remand for further development of the record where plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the hearing process and did not show that he had tried himself to obtain the information he complained was lacking and stating that "[m]ost significantly, reversal due to failure to develop the record is only warranted where such failure is unfair or prejudicial") (citing Onstad v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir. 1993)). The Court likewise overrules Plaintiff's remaining objections, adopting the reasoning of the Magistrate as to those issues.

The Court therefore concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and ADOPTED as this Court's findings in all respects.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.