IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division MARGARET BERRETT, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 1:19¢v00801 ANDREW M. SAUL, ) Acting Commissioner of Social ) Security, ) Defendant. ORDER On July 23, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis entered a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) in this social security case regarding a final decision from the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits. In the Report, Judge Davis recommends that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.' Specifically, the Report holds: (i) that the Administrative Law I udge (“ALJ”) sufficiently explained how he determined plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) as to routine, tasks, production quotas, and concentration, attention, and pace; (ii) that the ALJ explained how he determined plaintiff's functional limitations as of March 24, 2015; and (iii) that the ALJ did not fail to address material evidence from two medica] exams.

Both parties in this matter were represented by counsel.

Upon consideration of the record and Judge Davis's thorough and well-reasoned Report, to which no objections have been filed, and having found no clear error,” The Court ADOPTS, as its own, the findings and facts and recommendations of Judge Davis as set forth in his Report (Doc. 19). Accordingly, It is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc, 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Rule 58 judgment in favor of the defendant. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to place this matter among the ended causes.

Alexandria, Virginia August 10, 2020 .

United States Distyict Judge

? See Diamond y. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co,,

(4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a magistrate’s report, the court “need not conduct a de movo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear crror on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.””).