ORDER

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court in consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson (Doc. # 24), filed on May 14, 2014, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits be affirmed. On May 28, 2014, Plaintiff Brandon E. Hacia filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 25), and the Government filed a response to that objection on June 11, 2014 (Doc. # 26). Upon due consideration, the Court overrules Hacia's objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation.

Discussion

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).

In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Hous. v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

The Court has conducted an independent examination of the file, and upon due consideration, the Court overrules Hacia's objection, adopts the Report and Recommendation, and affirms the Commissioner's decision. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

DONE and ORDERED.