ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 50) ("R&R") relating to Defendant Martane H. Wade's motion to suppress (ECF No. 38). Defendant had until April 26, 2019, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 54.) To date, no objection to the R&R 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." 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 to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman's R&R to deny Defendant's motion to suppress. Upon reviewing the R&R, the briefs relating to Defendant's motion to suppress (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 43, 48, 49), and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 47), this Court agrees with the R&R and will adopt the R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 50) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to suppress (ECF No. 38) is denied.