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

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 22) relating to Plaintiff's pro se opening brief, which Judge Cobb construed as a motion for reversal and/or remand (ECF No. 16) and Defendant's response and cross-motion to affirm (ECF Nos. 20, 21). Judge Cobb recommended granting Plaintiff's motion for remand, denying Defendant's cross-motion, and remanding this case. (ECF No. 22.) Defendant had until February 8, 2019, to object. (Id.) To date, no objections 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., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in order to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Upon review of the R&R and the records in this case, the Court finds good cause to adopt the R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 22) is accepted and adopted.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 16) is granted.

It is further ordered that Defendant's cross-motion to affirm (ECF No 20) is denied.

This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with Judge Cobb's R&R.

The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case.