ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 41, 46)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court are Defendant A.T. Ramos's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 41), and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt's Report and Recommendation concerning Defendant's Motion, ("R&R," ECF No. 46). Judge Burkhardt ordered the parties file any objections no later than July 23, 2018. On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff Anthony McGinnis filed a motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 48), which the Court granted, (ECF No. 49).1 Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant's Motion and failed to timely object to the Report and Recommendation.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court's duties in connection with a magistrate judge's R&R. The district court 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. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, 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 advisory committee's note (citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

Here, Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to Judge Burkhardt's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is well reasoned and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Burkhardt's R&R (ECF No. 46), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 41). This Order concludes litigation in this case and the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.