ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20],

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 15], AND

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 18]

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff Karen S. Scott filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. The matter was referred to the Honorable Bernard G. Skomal, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On August 8, 2017, Judge Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Report [Doc. 20] 32:13-18.) The Report also ordered any objections filed by August 22, 2017. (Id. at 32:21-23.) To date, no objection has been filed, nor has there been a request for additional time in which to file an objection.

A district court's duties concerning a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and a respondent's objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections are filed, the district court is not required to review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) "makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise") (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the District Court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). This rule of law is well-established within both the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R.") (emphasis added) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting Report without review because neither party filed objections despite having the opportunity to do so, and holding that, "accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety."); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

The Court therefore accepts Judge Skomal's recommendation, and ADOPTS the Report [Doc. 20] in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15] and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18]. The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.