ORDER:

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; [Doc. No. 23]

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 16]

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 19]

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, filed on December 2, 2011, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 23]. Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's R&R.

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge's R&R 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 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). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. 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. 2003) (en banc). A district court may nevertheless "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); Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F.Supp.2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006); Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. Rasmussen, 451 F.Supp.2d 1202, 1205 (D. Or. 2006).

After reviewing the R&R in its entirety, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by the record. In light of the foregoing, and the fact that neither party objected to the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.