IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02560-RM-SKC

MARK S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews (ECF No. 23) to grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se1, filed this action in September 2019, seeking an order directing Defendant to issue him a housing voucher. (See ECF No. 1.) In his complaint, he appears to be asserting a single claim for retaliation under

. (See ECF No. 5 at 4.) Defendant’s motion to dismiss was referred to the magistrate judge. When it was fully briefed, the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion because Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Defendant’s actions caused him to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in a protected activity or that Defendant’s adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to

1 Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court must liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner,

(1972). But the Court cannot act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon,

(10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff's protected activity. The recommendation advised Plaintiff that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the recommendation. Plaintiff did not object, and the time to do so has expired. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991). The Court concludes the magistrate judge’s analysis was thorough and sound and discerns no clear error on the face of the record. The recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See

(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 23) and GRANTS the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17). The Clerk is directed to enter JUDGMENT in Defendant’s favor and CLOSE this case. DATED this 5th day of June, 2020. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge