THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

BRIAN SCOTT REID, SR., ORDER ADOPTING [46] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING [36] Plaintiff, MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING [37] MOTION TO DISMISS, AND v. DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE WEST VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00576-DBB-CMR

Defendants. District Judge David Barlow

The Report and Recommendation1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on December 12, 2024, recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff Brian Scott Reid, Sr.’s (“Mr. Reid”) action.2 The magistrate judge reasoned dismissal was proper because Mr. Reid “failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the elements necessary to succeed” on his malicious prosecution claim.3 The magistrate judge also found that Mr. Reid’s claims are time- barred.4 The magistrate judge advised Mr. Reid of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation within 14 days of its service pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).5 Mr. Reid did not file an objection.6 Because he filed no written objection by the specified deadline, the court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear

1 Report and Recommendation Granting Motion to Dismiss, and Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46, filed Dec. 12, 2024. 2

. 3

. 4

at 11–12. 5

. 6 See Docket. error.’ Having done so, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions are sound and no clear error appears on the face of the record. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation? is ADOPTED. The court DISMISSES Plaintiffs action without prejudice. Signed January 3, 2025. BY THE COURT

David Barlow United States District Judge

7 Johnson v. Progressive Leasing, No. 222CV00052RJSCMR,

, at *2 (D. Utah June 16, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-4090,

(10th Cir. July 26, 2023) (“This court generally reviews unobjected-to portions of a report and recommendation for clear error.”); United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,

(10th Cir. 1996) (‘[ W]e hold that a party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 8 ECF No. 46.