ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Docket Nos. 18, 20, 22]

ROGER T. BENITEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Raymond J. Douville filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (docket no. 18), and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Docket No. 20.)

On January 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 22.) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment contends that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") committed reversible error for rejecting a portion of the medical opinion of Dr. Phong T. Dao, D.O., and failing to adequately explain the reason for the rejection. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt found that the ALJ did not err in rejecting the disputed portion of Dr. Dao's opinion because it was contradictory to some of Plaintiff's medical records and the opinions of two other physicians (one treating, one non-treating). Magistrate Judge Burkhardt also found the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for rejecting Dr. Dao's opinion. See Howard ex. Rel. Wolffv. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1998) ("[I]n interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the ALJ does not need to discuss `every piece of evidence.'").

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 30, 2017. (Docket No. 22.) Neither party has filed any objections. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" of a magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. However, the Court has conducted a de novo review and fully ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.