ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block (ECF No. 21), recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) be granted, the Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) be denied, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.").

No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of the Parties.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. the Commissioner's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).