The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stewart Dalzell, J.
AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2012, upon careful and independent consideration of plaintiff David E. Coit's brief and statement of issues in support of request for review (docket entry # 11), defendant Michael J. Astrue's response thereto (docket entry # 14), Coit's reply (docket entry # 18), the Honorable Lynne A. Sitarski's report and recommendation ("R&R") (docket entry # 20), Coit's objection thereto (docket entry # 21), and Astrue's response thereto (docket entry # 22), and the Court finding that:
(a) Coit filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on November 19, 2007, R. at 15;
(b) The Social Security Administration denied Coit's application on July 16, 2008, R. at 15, and Coit requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which took place on February 18, 2009;
(c) Plaintiff, with counsel, appeared and testified there;
(d) At that hearing, the ALJ decided to obtain physical and mental health consultative examinations before proceeding because Coit had failed to attend previously scheduled exams, R. at 70;
(e) After the exams, the ALJ held a second hearing on November 17, 2009, where Coit again appeared with counsel;
(f) On December 23, 2009, the ALJ found that Coit was not disabled within the meaning of the SSA, nor had he been since November 19, 2007, and the ALJ concluded that Coit retained the residual functional capacity to perform a significant number of jobs in the economy, R. at 26;
(g) Coit appealed this decision to the Appeals Council, which affirmed the ALJ's decision and denied Coit's request for review, R. at 1-11;
(h) Coit then timely commenced this action;
(i) On May 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski issued a report and recommendation ("R & R") in which she found the ALJ's decision to be supported by substantial evidence;
(j) Specifically, Judge Sitarski found substantial evidence to support the ALJ's rejection of the opinion of Dr. Carl Herman, a consultative examiner, and she found that the hypothetical question the ALJ posed to the vocational expert properly captured Coit's residual functional capacity, R & R at 6, 15;
(k) Coit filed objections to these two findings;
(l) 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 ...