IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

DAVID LAMARR LOVE,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:20-cv-83

v.

INSPECTOR MICHAEL MORALES and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

O RDE R After a careful de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s February 21, 2023, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (doc. 24). Plaintiff filed an untimely Objection to the R&R realleging that Defendants had wronged him by doubting his identification credentials upon his entry into a courthouse. (Doc. 25). Even though Plaintiff’s Objection was filed seven days after the deadline, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s arguments. Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED. The Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s untimely objections shows that, to the extent their substance can be discerned at all, they are entirely meritless. Although Plaintiff cites statutes, constitutional provisions, and other ethical rules, he fails to explain why they apply here. (See doc. 25 at 7 (citing to “Human rights, Disability rights Constitutional rights and Civil rights and Indigenous rights” and the “A.D.R.I.P”).) Moreover, he fails to address any of the authority cited by the Magistrate Judge, such as the Supreme Court’s recent treatment of claims brought against federal officers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971). See Egbert v. Boule, --- U.S. ---,

(2022). Likewise, Plaintiff fails to refute the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation for dismissal of Defendant Doe, whom Plaintiff failed to identify or serve. In short, Plaintiff fails to assert that a viable claim can or should proceed against Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff appears to contend that Defendants are bound by an “unrebutted” □□ Offer Affidavit for Closure and Settlement,” and thus references Defendants as “bonded.” (See, e.g., doc. 25 at 8.) The Court finds this assertion to be completely without merit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its opinion. (Doc. 24.) For the reasons discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the Court GRANTS Defendant Morales Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 20). Defendant Doe is dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2023. f S ~ Lye R.STANBAKER ss—‘i—sSCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA