ORDER

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (#113) on June 6, 2013, in which he recommends that the Court should deny Defendant TransUnion's motion summary judgment. Both Plaintiff and Defendant timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Defendant TransUnion raises the following objections to the Findings and Recommendation: (1) the finding that accuracy is not a complete defense to Plaintiff's claims, (2) the finding that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether TransUnion's reporting of Plaintiff Boydstun's account was misleading or incomplete, and (3) the finding that TransUnion's reinvestigation was not reasonable. Plaintiff Boydstun also objected to the F&R's finding that he conceded the accuracy of the debt, but does not object to the finding that based on the factual record, the debt was accurate.

I have carefully considered the objections and reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo. I conclude that only one of Defendant's objections, that the reinvestigation was not reasonable, provides a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. Judge Acosta concluded that "[u]nder Ninth Circuit law, it is insufficient to rely exclusively on automated verification from the creditor and, accordingly, Trans Union's reinvestigation was not reasonable."1 F&R 16. TransUnion objects to the finding that its reinvestigation was not reasonable because the issue was not before the judge. TransUnion is correct. Judge Acosta limited TransUnion's motion for summary judgment to two arguments: whether Boydstun agreed to be individually liable and whether the report contained a factual deficiency that could have been resolved in a reasonable investigation. July 26, 2013 Minutes of Proceedings (Dkt. #107). The parties did not brief the issue of whether TransUnion's reinvestigation was reasonable, and thus the issue was not before the court. I decline to adopt the finding that TransUnion's reinvestigation was not reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#113), with the exception of the finding that TransUnion's reinvestigation was not reasonable. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#89) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.