OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

On March 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [26] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Plaintiff's unopposed application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act [22] be GRANTED and fees awarded in the amount of $6,859.93.

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. I am not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge; instead, I retain responsibility for making the final determination. I am required to review de novo those portions of the report or any specified findings or recommendations within it to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, I am not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [26] as my own opinion. Plaintiff's unopposed application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act [22] is GRANTED, and fees are awarded in the amount of $6,859.93.

IT IS SO ORDERED.