ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; and

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Gweynn Marie Brown filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's1 denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiffs motion.

On July 12, 2017, the Honorable William V. Gallo issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Gallo found that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") provided specific reasons for his conclusion of Plaintiffs non-disability, and that the record supports the ALJ's findings. With respect to Plaintiffs credibility and claims of greater disability, Judge Gallo found that the ALJ specifically identified which portions of Plaintiffs testimony were not credible and provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting that testimony. Judge Gallo explained that the ALJ properly evaluated, among other things, Plaintiffs participation in daily activities, her conservative treatment for the severe symptoms alleged, and the inconsistency between the objective evidence and the severe symptoms alleged. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 3, 2017. Neither party has filed any objections.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Docket No. 19). Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Docket No. 17). Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Docket No. 18). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.