OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.

On September 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [96], recommending that I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [53] without prejudice as to the third and fifth claims in Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [69], and otherwise GRANTED with prejudice.1 Plaintiff objected to the F&R, with specific objection to Judge Papak's findings on claims three through six. Defendants responded, stating that Judge Papak's findings were correct.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the comi, to which any party may file written objections. The comi is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The comi is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the repmi or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is 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 or not 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)(C).

CONCLUSION

I have reviewed those portions of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [96] in full. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [53] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint [69] is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the third and fifth claims, and otherwise DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law [79, 84, 90] are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.