ORDER (1) ADOPTING R&R; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 15, 17, 19)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and (2) grant Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 19.) No party filed an objection or a reply to Judge Gallo's R&R. For the following reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Gallo's R&R in its entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), and (3) GRANTS Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17).

BACKGROUND

Judge Gallo's R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 6-20.1) This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties regarding a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district court "shall 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)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980). In the absence of a timely objection, however, "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 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 510 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

As discussed, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection or a reply to Judge Gallo's R&R. And after review of the moving papers and Judge Gallo's R&R, the Court finds "that there is no clear error on the face of the record" and thus the Court may "accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell, 510 F.2d at 206). Additionally, the Court agrees with Judge Gallo's conclusions that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination was not erroneous because (1) the decision was based on substantial evidence, (R&R 20-30), and (2) the ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff's subjective testimony, (id. at 30-40). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Gallo's R&R and thus DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Gallo's R&R in its entirety, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), and (3) GRANTS Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17). This Order ends the litigation in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.