IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION WALTER JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:19-cv-00065 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) SOCIAL SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 29), to which no Objections have been timely 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, 2019 WL 549506, at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., Case No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). 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., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, Case No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, 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. Id. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall be considered the final judgment for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. IT IS SO ORDERED. ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE