ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

The Plaintiff, Nicey Wilson, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), who denied her application for Supplemental Security Income. Consistent with the Court's practice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for the issuance of a report and recommendation containing proposed findings and recommendations. [R. 14.]

On March 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation. [R. 15.] In his Report, the Magistrate Judge considers and rejects each of Wilson's arguments. Specifically, Judge Atkins finds that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") applied the proper pain standard. [Id. at 5-7.] Judge Atkins further finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings regarding Wilson's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and migraine headaches. [Id. at 7-8.] Although the parties were given fourteen (14) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections [id. at 9], neither party objected.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 15] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court;

2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 12] is DENIED;

3. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 13] is GRANTED; and

4. Judgment in favor of the Defendant will be entered contemporaneously herewith.