ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert Wade Morse, who was in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), brings this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R" or "Recommendation") of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 42), recommending that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action, and to respond to the Court's order to show cause. Plaintiff had until June 17, 2019 to file an objection. (Id.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R.

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).

While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb's recommendation to dismiss this action, the Court will conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb found that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action since the unsuccessful mediation held on February 6, 2018, and to respond to his order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 42.) Having reviewed the R&R and the records in this case, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb.

It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) is adopted in full.

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

It is further ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is denied as moot.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case.