The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stewart Dalzell, J.
AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2012, upon careful and independent consideration of plaintiff Colleen Faure's ("Faure") brief and statement of issues in support of request for review (docket entry # 11), defendant Michael J. Astrue's response thereto (docket entry # 12), Faure's reply (docket entry # 14), the Honorable Timothy R. Rice's report and recommendation (docket entry # 15), Faure's objection thereto (docket entry #16), and the Court finding that:
(a) Faure filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD) benefits on January 29, 2009, R. 19;
(b) The Social Security Administration denied Faure's application on April 21, 2009, R. 84;
(c) Faure filed a request for a hearing, which the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held on November 10, 2009, R. 33-80;
(d) On February 25, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision that Faure was not disabled because though she could not return to work she had done in the past, she could perform other jobs,
(e) Faure appealed this decision to the Appeals Council, R. 14-15, which affirmed the ALJ's decision and denied Faure's request for review;
(f) Faure then timely commenced this action;
(g) On August 16, 2012, Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice issued a report and recommendation ("R & R") in which he found the ALJ's decision to be supported by substantial evidence;
(h) Specifically, Judge Rice found that (1) the ALJ properly granted limited weight to the treating physician's opinion and (2) the ALJ reasonably discredited Faure's testimony about the severity and functionally limiting effects of her pain and symptoms, R & R 1;
(i) Faure filed objections to these two findings;
(j) 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) provides that when a party files "written objections to [a Magistrate Judge's] proposed findings or recommendations," our Court shall "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made";
(k) The standard by which we conduct this review provides that we are to uphold the Commissioner's final decision if "substantial evidence" supports it, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 632, 633 (3d Cir. 2010);
(l) Our Court of Appeals defines substantial evidence as "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion", Smith, 631 F.3d at 633 ...