ORDER:

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY;

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE;

(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY; AND

(4) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

CYNTHIA BASHANT, District Judge.

On January 15, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Mark Brown II, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint asserting civil-rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Since that time, the case has largely stalled due to Brown's request to extend the discovery deadline, and Brown's release from prison in April 2015. Upon his release from prison, Brown left no forwarding address, effectively blocking Defendants from conducting discovery. Brown was re-incarcerated on October 1, 2015. On December 24, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. (ECF No. 48.)

On July 20, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 70), recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, deny Plaintiff's motion to re-open discovery (ECF No. 50), and deny as moot Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 55). The deadline for filing objections to the R&R was August 3, 2016. Four weeks have passed since the August 3 deadline and neither party has filed objections.

I. DISCUSSION

The Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which objections are made. See 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 August 3, 2016. However, no objections have been filed, and neither 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 briefing related to Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and the magistrate judge's R&R, the Court concludes that Judge Crawford's reasoning and conclusions are sound. Therefore, the Court 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. 70), GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF No. 48), DENIES Plaintiff's motion to re-open discovery (ECF No. 50), and TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 55).

IT IS SO ORDERED.