The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF Nos. 12, 18, 24)
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 12), Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 18), and Magistrate Mitchell D. Dembin's report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny both Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions, (ECF No. 24).*fn1
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). However, in the absence of timely objection, 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, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Dembin's R&R. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin's R&R, (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (3) DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.