ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 20], (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTON [DOC. 12], AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION [DOC. 15]

THOMAS J. WHELAN, District Judge.

On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff Anne Loring Cash filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the Honorable Jill L. Burkhardt, 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 January 26, 2017, Judge Burkhardt issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Court (1) grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (2) deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and (3) remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (Report [Doc. 20] 19:17-22.) The Report also ordered any objections filed no later than February 9, 2018, and any reply filed by February 16, 2018. (Id. 19:23-20:6.) 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 Burkhardt'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 GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 12], DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. 15], and ORDERS the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with the Report.

The Clerk shall close the District Court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.