IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

DANNY RAY SCARBOROUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 3:23-cv-00529 ) UNITED STATES NAVY, et al., ) JUDGE CAMPBELL ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36), which was filed on July 19, 2024. Through the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) be granted based on res judicata and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 11) be dismissed with prejudice. The Report is ripe for consideration. (See Doc. Nos. 37, 38, 39). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Under

(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis,

(6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason,

(6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.”

(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). Here, Plaintiff's objection fails to identify any specific factual or legal errors on the part of Judge Frensley in making his determination. Objections which do not identify an error are meritless. See Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection fails to state viable grounds to challenge Judge Frensley’s conclusions or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiffs objection, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 11) is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is so ORDERED. Mle CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE