KIMBA WOOD, District Judge
Pro se petitioner Shilene Satchell ("Satchell") brings this action on behalf of her minor son, W.J., pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Satchell seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") to deny W.J.'s application for Supplemental Security Income. The Commissioner moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
On August 27, 2009, Magistrate Judge Frank Mass issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), familiarity with which is assumed. The Report concludes that the Commissioner's determination that W.J. is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is supported by substantial evidence. The Report recommends that the Commissioner's decision should be upheld. See Cordero v. Astrue, 574 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). No objections have been filed to the Report.
The Report informed the parties that they had ten days from service of the Report to file any objections. The Report also informed the parties that they could request an extension of time to file such objections. The Report explicitly cautioned that failure to file timely objections would preclude appellate review. No objections have been filed to the Report, and the time to object has expired.
For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in its entirely and GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for judgment on pleadings.
I. Standard of Review
When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no "clear error on the face of the record" in order to accept the recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note; see also Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
II. Analysis
The Court has reviewed the Report and finds it to be well-reasoned and free of any clear error on the face of the record. The Court agrees with the Report's conclusion that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision that W.J. is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and thus is not eligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Court, therefore, adopts the Report in its entirely.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. (D.E. 20). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Any pending motions are moot.
The parties' failure to object to the Report precludes appellate review of this Court's decision to adopt the Report.Small v. Sec'y of Health Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that failure to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of appellate review of the district court's ultimate order).
SO ORDERED.