ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 24);

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 21); and

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15).

ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is plaintiff's social security appeal. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. No. 24.) The R&R recommends: (1) granting defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment; and (2) denying plaintiff's motion. (Id. at 22.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by February 16, 2018, and any reply to objections filed by February 23, 2018. (Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district judge's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. The district judge must "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); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of objection(s), 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(b) advisory committee note to the 1983 amendment; see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

Neither party filed objections to the R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler's R&R, (Doc. No. 24); (2) GRANTS defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 21); and (3) DENIES plaintiff's summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 15).

IT IS SO ORDERED.