ORDER AFFIRMING MARCH 13, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 14.)1

On December 5, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to cure its defects. (Doc. # 72.) On January 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 81.) On March 13, 2015, Judge Watanabe issued a Recommendation to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 86). (Doc. # 93.) In his recommendation, Magistrate Judge Watanabe found that Plaintiff's allegations in his Second Amended Complaint "are no more sufficient now than they were [in his First Amended Complaint]." On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to Judge Watanabe's Recommendation. (Doc. # 94.)

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to." In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.

In the instant case, Plaintiff does not "properly object[]" to any part of the Recommendation. Instead, he reiterates arguments that were properly before Magistrate Judge Watanabe at the time his Recommendation issued. For instance, in responding to each of Judge Watanabe's recommendations (Doc. ## 70, 93), Plaintiff argued that Judge Watanabe's conclusions were improper because he was in extreme pain and suffering from tooth problems that even a lay person would know that he needed to see medical professionals. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's objection thereto. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that Judge Watanabe's Recommendation is correct and is not called into question by Plaintiff's objection.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection (Doc. # 94) is OVERRULED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 93) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 86) is GRANTED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as attempts at amendment have proved futile. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.