MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (ECF #21). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff, Ms. Cindy Lynn Coburn, filed her Complaint (ECF #1) challenging the final decision of the Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying her application for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381. Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Greenberg.

On March 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found the Commissioner's decision denying the Plaintiff's application for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits failed to evaluate objective medical evidence and explain the conclusion for denial. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Commissioner's decision be vacated and the case remanded. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within 14 days of service. No objections were filed.

Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) states:

The text of Rule 72(b) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have been made; it does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for those reports to which no objections have been properly made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court's review of unopposed reports by magistrate judges. Regarding subsection (b) of 72, the advisory committee stated: "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation." FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted).

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985): "It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."

Conclusion

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Greenberg (ECF #21) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.