ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding (Doc. 15), filed November 10, 2016.

In this Social Security appeal, Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner's decision to deny her social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) As set forth in U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), an administrative law judge ("ALJ") originally held a hearing on Plaintiff's application for benefits on June 4, 2014. (Doc. 15, p. 2.) The ALJ ultimately found that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id.) On appeal, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the proceedings, instructing the ALJ to "further evaluate [Plaintiff's] mental impairments, give further consideration to her maximum [residual function capacity] and, if warranted by the expanded record, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effects of the assessed limitations on [Plaintiff's] occupation base." (Id. at 2, 14.)

Following remand, the ALJ held a second administrative hearing, after which he again concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Id. at 2-4.) In the instant action, Plaintiff seeks review of this decision on grounds that the ALJ: (1) erred in giving little weight to her treating physician's 2014 functional capacity assessment; (2) failed to follow the Appeals Council's instructions on remand; (3) erred in giving great weight to statements in a hospital discharge record ("Hospital Discharge Summary"), which he mistakenly believed was prepared by a treating professional; and (4) erred by crediting the opinions of reviewing professionals. (Doc. 15, p. 12.)

Magistrate Judge Spaulding largely agrees with Plaintiff's assignments of error. Specifically, the R&R concludes that: (1) the ALJ failed to state good cause based on substantial record evidence for affording little weight to the opinion of Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist; (2) the ALJ's decision does not demonstrate that he complied with the Appeals Council's remand order; (3) the ALJ's decision to give great weight to the Hospital Discharge Summary was unsupported by substantial evidence; and (4) the ALJ did not properly discount the opinion of Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist and, thus, erred as a matter of law by giving greater weight to the opinions of the reviewing professionals. (Id. at 12-17.) Based on these findings, Magistrate Judge Spaulding recommends that the Court reverse and remand the final decision of the Commissioner for further proceedings. (Id. at 16-17.) Neither party objected to the R&R and the time for doing so has expired.

Having independently reviewed the R&R for fairness and in the absence of any objection, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Spaulding and adopts the R&R in its entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (suggesting that a de novo review is only required when a party objects to the proposed findings and recommendations). The Court, therefore, finds that the Commissioner's decision is due to be reversed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.