Monteleone v. University of Arizona Dean of Student's Office

Opinion

Robert Paul Monteleone, No. CV-20-00189-TUC-JAS (MSA)

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

University of Arizona Dean of Student's Office, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Aguilera that recommends that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be granted and that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is accepted and adopted. (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) is DENIED as moot.' Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 24) is DENIED as moot. This Case is dismissed case with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this matter. Dated this 8th day of February, 2021. A ark, = Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge 26) ! While the Court denies this Motion as moot, it would also deny it on the merits. The Report and Recommendation found, and this Court agrees and adopts the finding that [a]mendment would be futile because Plaintiffs claim is barred by res judicata. There are no other facts that could cure this defect. See Olson, 188 F.3d at 1086 (stating that res judicata bars claims based ‘not only upon facts actually litigated but also upon those points that might have been litigated’).” _2-