ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17), filed on April 4, 2014, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be affirmed. With no timely objections filed, the Court initially adopted the Report and Recommendation on April 22, 2014. (Doc. # 18). However, on April 29, 2014, Plaintiff Kevin Cordiner filed his Consent Motion to Set Aside the Court's Decision and to Allow the filing of Objections. (Doc. # 20). In the Motion, counsel for Cordiner explained that he did not receive electronic notice of the Report and Recommendation and therefore did not file an objection to the same within the allotted time for the filing of objections. With the consent of the Government, Cordiner moved to set aside the Court's Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. In the interest of fairness, the Court set aside its Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and allowed Cordiner to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 21). At this juncture, Cordiner has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22), to which the Commissioner has responded. (Doc. # 23).

Discussion

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).

In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Wilson's Report and Recommendation as well as the Plaintiff's objection thereto and the Commissioner's response, the Court overrules the objection, adopts the Report and Recommendation, and affirms the Commissioner's decision. The Court agrees with Judge Wilson's detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law, including his conclusion that "the decision of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and does not contain reversible error." (Doc. # 17 at 26). The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson's report and recommendation (Doc. # 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

(2) The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying benefits is AFFIRMED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to close this case and to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner reflecting that the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is affirmed.

DONE and ORDERED.