ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER, III, District Judge.

On July 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") and recommended that this court deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22], and affirm defendant's final decision. See [D.E. 25].1 Neither party objected to the M&R.

"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted).

The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and the briefs. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 25].

In sum, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], GRANTS defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22], AFFIRMS defendant's final decision, and DISMISSES this action. The clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.