ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; [Doc. No. 18]

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [Doc. No. 13]

DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND [Doc. No. 14]

REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

On November 14, 2017, Plaintiff Yvette M. Dessert filed this social security appeal challenging the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Doc. No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the Honorable Peter C. Lewis, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation pursuant to section 636(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 72.1; Doc. No. 3. On June 14, 2018, this case was reassigned to the Honorable Robert N. Block, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation. Doc. No. 17.

The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 13, 14. On July 10, 2018, Judge Block issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's cross-motion, and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 18. Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has expired. See Doc. No. 18 at 14 ("Any party having objections to the Court's proposed findings and recommendations shall serve and file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation."); see also Docket.

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation 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 report and recommendation ("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 neither party objects to an R&R, or to portions thereof, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review, or "any review at all." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; see also 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 judge 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).

The Court has considered the pleadings and memoranda of the parties as well as the administrative record, and has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law.

Accordingly:

1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Block's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] in its entirety;

2. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13];

3. The Court DENIES Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14]; and

4. The Court REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.