ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 22);

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 19); AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. No. 20)

ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 19), and (2) Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 20). The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo for a Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"), which was issued on February 11, 2020. (Doc. No. 22.) The Magistrate Judge recommends "Plaintiff's MSJ be DENIED and that Defendant's Cross-MSJ be GRANTED." (Id. at 10.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 26, 2020, and a reply to the objections no later than March 4, 2020. (Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made[,]" and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), the 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 note to the 1983 amendment; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Thus, having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS the R&R; (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (3) GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.