ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 28);

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 22);

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 15); AND

(4) REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA, District Judge.

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's request that the Court review the commissioner's denial of his claim for disability benefits. (Doc. Nos. 15, 22.) The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. No. 3.) The R&R recommends (1) granting in part and denying in part defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22); (2) granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 15); and (3) remanding the matter for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration, so that the Administrative Law Judge may address Dr. Bilezikjian's additional exertional and postural limitations, and accurately classify Plaintiff's prior work. (Doc. No. 28 at 16.) The parties were instructed to file written objections to the R&R by November 13, 2019. (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 has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Montenegro's 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 Montenegro's R&R, (Doc. No. 28); (2) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 22); (3) GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 15); and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration. The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.