ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) REMANDING CASE

(ECF Nos. 20, 22, 25)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (2) deny Defendant's1 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) remand the case for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 25.) No party filed an objection or a reply to Judge Skomal's R&R. For the following reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal's R&R in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 13); (3) DENIES Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 14); and (4) REMANDS this case to the agency for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Judge Skomal'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 3-5.)2 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); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 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)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.").

ANALYSIS

Objections were due March 7, 2018 and replies were due March 14, 2018. (R&R 22.) As discussed, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection or a reply to Judge Skomal's R&R. And, after review of the moving papers and Judge Skomal'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 Skomal's conclusions that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination was erroneous because (1) the ALJ improperly rejected Plaintiff's subjective testimony, (see R&R 16-20), and (2) the ALJ improperly rejected the opinions of Plaintiff's treating doctors, (id. at 5-16). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Skomal's R&R in its entirety and thus GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) ADOPTS Judge Skomal's R&R in its entirety, (2) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 20), (3) DENIES Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 22), and (4) REMANDS this case to the agency for further proceedings. This Order ends the litigation in this matter. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.