ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and DISMISSING ACTION

DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen's Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 14, filed July 8, 2014] To date, no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file such has passed.

Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope to determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility findings of an administrative law judge ("ALJ") must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court's review of an ALJ's decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ's credibility determination and the ALJ's choice of hypothetical limitations posed to the Vocational Expert, were supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the ALJ's findings and the record in reaching his conclusions that Plaintiff was capable of exertionally light work. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen [Doc. No. 14, filed July 8, 2014] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 9, filed October 24, 2013] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13, filed January 23, 2014] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.