GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
On September 22, 2015, Defendants Luvsurf, Inc. and Brian MacDonald (collectively "Defendants") filed an ex parte motion to amend the case management order and for leave to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES. (ECF No. 67.) On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' motion. (Opp'n, ECF No. 68.) On October 6, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major denied Defendants' motion to amend the case management order and issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") recommending that this Court deny Defendants' motion for leave to amend the counterclaim. (Report, ECF No. 69.) Judge Major ordered any objections to be filed no later than October 13, 2015, and any replies filed no later than October 20, 2015. (Id. at 9.) To date, no objections have been filed and neither party has sought an extension to do so.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report 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. However, "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district court 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 114, 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 not the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." Id. "When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived." Marshall v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) (adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the report despite the opportunity to do so).
In the instant case, the deadline for filing objections was October 13, 2015. To date, no objections have been filed and neither party has sought additional time. Consequently, the Court may adopt the Report on that basis alone. See Rayna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. The Court nonetheless conducted a de novo review of Defendants' motion to amend the counterclaim (ECF No. 67), Plaintiffs' opposition (ECF No. 68), and the Report (ECF No. 69). The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for untimely seeking to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES and allowing Defendants to do so would be prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and