ORDER

NEIL V. WAKE, District Judge.

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Boyle (Doc. 122) regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Charging Order against Defendant Michael Allen Canfield's interest in Twalker Development, LLC (Doc. 117). The R&R recommends that the Motion for Charging Order (Doc. 117) be granted. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the Magistrate Judge's determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) ("[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). The absence of a timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ("A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate's order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to."); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and grant the Motion for Charging Order (Doc. 117). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.122) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Charging Order against Defendant Michael Allen Canfield's interest in Twalker Development, LLC (Doc. 117). Charging Order to issue under separate order.