OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.

On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [33] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Defendant LNV Corp.'s Motion for Judicial Notice [10] be GRANTED, its Motion to Dismiss [6] be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and its motion for a more definite statement be GRANTED. No objections were filed.

DISCUSSION

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

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [33] as my own opinion. Defendant LNV Corp.'s Motion for Judicial Notice [10] is GRANTED and its Motion to Dismiss [6] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.