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

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

I. SUMMARY

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 33) ("R&R") recommending granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion") (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff had until November 8, 2017 to object. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center ("NNCC"). (ECF. no. 7 at 1.) Following screening, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on two claims: (1) Count I for First Amendment Free Exercise and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") claim against Defendants NNCC Warden Isidro Baca and chaplain James Stogner; and (2) Count III for Equal Protection Clause violations claim against Stronger. (ECF No. 8 at 3-7.) The relevant facts are recited in the R&R (ECF No. 33 at 6-7, 9), which the Court adopts.

III. DISCUSSION

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). In light of Plaintiffs' objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb's recommendation. 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).

Plaintiff failed to file an objection. Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants based upon Plaintiff's failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact to oppose summary judgment. In particular, the Magistrate Judge found that the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants did not place any substantial burden on Plaintiff's exercise of his religion in support of Count I. (ECF No. 33 at 6-9.) As for Count III, which is premised on Stronger's alleged dealings with the Muslim community faith group prison reform student minister, Derek Perkins, the Magistrate Judge found in part that Stronger undisputedly did not have such dealings with Mr. Perkins. (Id. at 9-11.) Having reviewed the R&R and the briefs relating to Defendant's Motion, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the R&R.

IV. CONCLUSION

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is granted.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.