ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 21]

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

[Doc. Nos. 11, 17]

DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REMAND AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND

[Doc. Nos. 12, 18]

REMANDING FOR THE RE-CALCULATION AND AWARD OF BENEFITS

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

On August 10, 2018, Plaintiff Julie Ann Thorne, proceeding pro se, filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of her request to review the Administrative Law Judge's June 1, 2016 "fully favorable decision." Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the assigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to section 63(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. Doc. Nos. 3, 10. On May 14, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a Report recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for remand, and remanding the case for a calculation and award of benefits based on Plaintiff's January 24, 2006 application date. Doc. No. 21 at 2.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties object to a report and recommendation ("R&R"), "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Here, neither party has objected to the R&R. See Docket. When neither party objects to an R&R, or to portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, or "any review at all." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). As such, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for remand, and REMANDS this case for a calculation and award of benefits based on Plaintiff's January 24, 2006 application date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.