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 (ECF No. 33) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff Tracey Lee Grant's motion for attorney's fees (ECF No. 25). The parties had until December 24, 2018, to object to the R&R. No objections to the R&R have 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." Id. 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., id. at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).

Nevertheless, the 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 granting Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA in the amount of $4,674.53 and allowing the award to be paid by the government directly to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to Plaintiff's assignment. (ECF No. 33 at 11.) 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 (ECF No. 33) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (ECF No. 25) is granted in the amount of $4,674.53 to be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel by the government.