OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, District Judge.
On October 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R")  in the above-captioned case, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees  and bill of costs  be granted in part and the Defendant City be ordered to pay attorney's fees in the amount of $23, 399.60 and costs in the amount of $865.00. Plaintiff Philip Wolfe raised several objections to the F&R , and Defendant City responded .
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 as 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 party has objected. 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 I am required to apply to 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 Papak's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R ...