ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Plaintiff Bradley V Smith-Ostroumov asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act arising from his allegations that Defendant Andre Long, then Plaintiff's Principal, but now the head of human resources for the Clark County School District, retaliated against him and forced him into early retirement. (ECF No. 2-1 at 4.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R" or "Recommendation") of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry (ECF No. 15), recommending that the Court deny Defendants' pending motion to dismiss ("Motion") (ECF No. 4) as premature. Defendants had until July 17, 2019 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will deny Defendants' Motion.

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 Defendants have failed to object to Judge Carry's recommendation to deny the Motion, the Court will conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Carry found that the Motion was premature because it was filed before the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore recommended the Motion be denied. (ECF No. 15 at 2.) Having reviewed the R&R and the briefs relating to Defendants' Motion, the Court agrees with Judge Carry.

It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is adopted in full.

It is further ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice.