Manuel v. Bridge Property Managment

Opinion

Antrez Manuel, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01586-JAD-NJK

Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and v. Recommendation, Dismissing Case, and Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed in Bridge Property Management, forma pauperis

Defendant [ECF Nos. 8, 10]

The magistrate judge has screened plaintiff Antrez Manuel’s amended complaint,1 finds that his allegations continue to fall short of stating a colorable claim, and recommends that I dismiss Manuel’s action without leave to amend.2 The deadline for any party to object to that recommendation was November 9, 2022, and no party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.”3 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do.

1 ECF No. 7. 2 ECF No. 10. 3 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend 3 because it appears that amendment would be futile. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 8] is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

7 US pimaludge Hoa A Dosey Dated: November 29, 2022 8 9 1]