ORDER

MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff's Complaint seeking review of the denial of his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). (Dkt. 1) On January 26, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that "the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and the Commissioner's decision be affirmed." (Dkt. 36) Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling. (Dkt. 37)

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo 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); see Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

II. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff's objections are as follows: 1) The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred by unduly relying upon a, positive Waddell's test; 2) The ALJ erred by relying upon a Cooperative Disability Investigation (CDI) report (Dkt. 11-9 at 3-10), that summarized and relied upon a video surveillance that the ALJ did not personally review; and, 3) The ALJ discounted Plaintiff's credibility and that the ALJ's credibility evaluation is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. 36)

Addressing the Plaintiff's first objection, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that the ALJ provided ample support in the record for his conclusions and did not given undue weight to the Waddell's test. Additional record evidence, not only the Waddell's test, reinforced the ALJ's findings that the Plaintiff was able to work. (Dkt. 36 at 4-6) Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination that the ALJ's treatment of the CDI report was both appropriate and reasonable. In light of the record as a whole, the ALJ's decision shows that he considered the report along with other record evidence to make his determination. Therefore, his report is supported by substantial evidence. Lastly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ "clearly articulated his credibility determination, and the substantial evidence supports it." (Dkt. 36 at 8)

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

ORDER and ORDERED.