ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 17). Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this Court: (1) grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15); (2) deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13); and (3) affirm Defendant's decision that Plaintiff is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on or before April 23, 2019. Neither party filed objections.

The district court reviews de novo any part of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a specific written objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party who fails to object to the report and recommendation waives appellate review of the factual and legal questions).

After a careful review of the record, the Report and Recommendation, and the parties' motions and memoranda, as well as the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins' Report and Recommendation.

It is, therefore, ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins (d/e 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 15) is GRANTED.

(3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is DENIED.

(4) Defendant's decision that Plaintiff is not entitled to Supplemental Security Income is AFFIRMED.

(5) THIS CASE IS CLOSED.