ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY [ECF No. 68], AND

(2) DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF No. 38]

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

Plaintiff Kelvin X. Singleton ("Plaintiff") is incarcerated at the California State Prison, Sacramento ("CALSAC"), located in Represa, California. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning retaliation against him when he was incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility ("RJD") in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff subsequently requested leave to amend his complaint twice, which was granted. (ECF Nos. 8, 27, 29, 31.) Plaintiff subsequently filed his First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") on May 19, 2017. (ECF No. 32.) On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion to supplement his FAC to add new defendants at CALSAC and allegations concerning their conduct. (ECF No. 38.) This Court referred Plaintiff's ex parte motion to supplement the FAC to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes. Defendants have opposed Plaintiff's request (ECF No. 43), and Plaintiff submitted a reply in support of his request (ECF No. 49).

On September 12, 2017, Judge Stormes issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommended that Plaintiff's request for leave to supplement the FAC be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff filing claims concerning his new allegations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 68.) The deadline for any party to submit written objections to the R&R was September 27, 2017 (id.); no party has submitted any objections.

I. ANALYSIS

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. "The statute makes it clear," however, "that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate judge's report). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. This legal rule is well-established in the Ninth Circuit and this district. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Of course, de novo review of a[n] R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R."); Nelson v. Giurbino, 395 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so); see also Nichols v. Logan, 355 F.Supp.2d 1155, 1157 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (Benitez, J.).

In this case, the deadline for filing objections was September 27, 2017. (ECF No. 68.) However, no objections have been filed, and no party has requested additional time to do so. Consequently, the Court may adopt the R&R on that basis alone. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

Nonetheless, having conducted a de novo review of the parties' motions and the magistrate judge's R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Stormes' reasoning is sound. The R&R is thorough, well-reasoned, and correctly concludes that Plaintiff's request for leave to supplement the FAC should be denied due to the futility of such amendment. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege any plausible causal connection between the new CALSAC defendants he seeks to add and the retaliation claims against the existing RJD defendants that form the basis of this case. (ECF No. 68.) Moreover, the Court agrees that permitting amendment or a supplement to the FAC to join additional defendants from another prison in another judicial district on unrelated claims would not serve judicial economy. (Id.) Therefore, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Having reviewed the R&R and there being no objections, the Court ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R. (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement the FAC in this case is DENIED. The Court's denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his new claims in an appropriate venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.