ORDER:

(1) APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; AND

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF Nos. 36, 47]

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff Darnell Dukes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint asserting civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 10, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal C. Lewis issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending that this Court grant Defendants E. Alvarez, M. Chacon, and D. Gambold's motion for summary judgment. The time for filing objections to the R&R expired on December 29, 2014. (R&R 9:2-4.) To date, neither party has filed any objections.

I. ANALYSIS

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. But "[t]he statute makes it clear 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 rule of law is well-established within 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 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 on December 29, 2014. However, 28 days have passed since the deadline lapsed and no objections have been filed. Neither party has requested additional time to file objections as well. 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 briefing related to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Skomal's reasoning is sound and accurate in concluding that Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted. (See R&R 7:1-8:18.) 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 APPROVES AND ADOPTS IN ITS ENTIRETY the R&R (ECF No. 47), and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.