ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, District Judge.

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. [Doc. 24]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Trumble filed his R&R on May 23, 2019, wherein he recommends this Court grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16] be granted, defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19] be denied, and that the decision of the Commissioner be vacated and the case remanded to the Commissioner.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's finding to which 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 findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

Upon careful review, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 24] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby GRANTS the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 16]. Further, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 19] is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED, and this case is ORDERED REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to identify, resolve, and explain the resolution of the conflicts between the VE's testimony and the DOT, consistent with the directives herein and the relevant policies and regulations.

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.