ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 18), regarding Plaintiff Ezequiel Zarate Chavarin's Motion to Remand ("Plaintiff's Motion") (ECF No. 14) and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill's Cross Motion to Affirm and Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reversal ("Defendant's Motion") (ECF No. 16). The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's Motion and granting Defendant's Motion. (ECF No. 18.)1 Plaintiff had until January 24, 2018, to file an objection. To date, no objection 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).

As noted, Plaintiff failed to object to the R&R's recommendation to deny Plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R.

It is therefore ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 18) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's motion for remand or reversal (ECF No. 14) is denied and Defendant's cross motion to affirm (ECF No. 16) is granted.

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