ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, recommending the court deny the appeal of Marjory Muhaw ("Muhaw") from the decision of the administrative law judge denying her claim for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits, and it appearing that Muhaw did not object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F.Supp.3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Cohn that the decision of the administrative law judge is "supported by substantial evidence," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001), and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: