ORDER AND OPINION

JAMES E. SHADID, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a May 16, 2019 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) from Magistrate Judge Hawley. More than 14 days have elapsed since the filing of the Report and Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties have failed to raise timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant procedural history has been sufficiently outlined in the comprehensive Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff claims the Appeals Council erred in reversing the ALJ's favorable decision for Plaintiff—after the testimony of a vocational expert that Plaintiff could perform jobs that exist in some number less than 32,400, the ALJ ruled that work did not exist in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council reversed, stating that 32,400 jobs was a significant number and determining that only a minimal reduction in that number had occurred, despite the lack of evidence in the record regarding the actual number of such jobs remaining in the national economy. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's detailed discussion and recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report and Recommendation [17] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 9) is GRANTED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (Doc. 13) is GRANTED, and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Sentence Four.

This matter is now terminated.