1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCOS MIGUEL RANGEL, Case No. 5:21-cv-00466-DMG-AFM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION JUDGE 15 CENTER, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Report and 19 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and has engaged in a de novo 20 review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court 21 accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court 22 also denies Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel because he has failed to 23 show a likelihood of success on his claims or extraordinary circumstances. See, e.g., 24 Agyeman v. Corrs. Corp. of America,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (decision 25 to appoint counsel is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted 26 only in exceptional circumstances”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) dismissing the 2 || First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend, and (2) dismissing this 3 || action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 4 5 || DATED: December 20, 2021

Kel, M.GEE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28