ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 75) ("R&R") relating to defendant Jack Starling's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (dkt. no. 53) and plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("Cross-Motion") (dkt. no. 69). The parties had until June 7, 2015, to object to the R&R. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

This Court "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). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb's Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Defendant Starling's Motion (dkt. no. 53) and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion (dkt. no. 69). Upon reviewing the Recommendation and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 75) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is ordered that Defendant Jack Starling's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 53) and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 69) are denied. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel and request for x-rays are denied.