Order

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Chief District Judge.

This social security matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed on July 18, 2014 by Magistrate Judge Gossett, to whom this case was assigned. (Doc. #29.) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, (Doc. #30), and the Commissioner filed a response to the objections, (Doc. #31). This matter is now ripe for decision.

In reviewing the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, the Court applies the following standard:

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).

In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the R&R and the objections. After careful review of the R&R and the objections, the R&R is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.