IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

LESHONDA RENA SOFTY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:19-cv-00249 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) ANDREW W. SAUL, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 22), to which no Objections have been filed. The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076,

, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn,

(1985)); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., Case No. 18-cv-11851,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc.,

(W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, Case No. 3:18-cv- 0010,

, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED, the decision of Defendant is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE