ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 25, 32)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Defendant Michael J. Astrue's ("Defendant") cross-motion for summary judgment, (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 25), and Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks's report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion, (R&R, ECF No. 32).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. The district court 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); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Magistrate Judge Brooks directed the parties to file any objections to the R&R on or before December 21, 2011. (R&R 23, ECF No. 32) Plaintiff Rosie Preciado has failed to timely file objections. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Brooks's R&R and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.