ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 21];

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 14];

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]; AND

(4) REMANDING CASE

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

On May 24, 2018, Kristy Kreischer ("Plaintiff") filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (May 29, 2018 Order [Doc. 4].) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. [Doc. 14]; Def.'s Mot. [Doc. 18].)

On May 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Robert Block issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. (R&R [Doc. 21].) Judge Block ordered that any objections to the R&R be filed within two weeks of service of the R&R—or June 3, 2019. (See id.) No objections were filed. There has been no request for additional time to object.

A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise."); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R[.]") (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting the R&R without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

In light of the foregoing, the Court accepts Judge Block's recommendation and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 21] in its entirety.

For the reasons stated in the R&R, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 14], DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18], and REMANDS the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. Upon remand, the Clerk shall close the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.