UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:18-cv-00550 Dawson Estate et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kelcy L. Warren et al., Defendants. Before BARKER, District Judge ORDER This case was originally filed by pro se plaintiffs Dawson Estate and Sheik Tehuti. An amended complaint omitted Dawson Estate as a plaintiff, leaving Sheik Tehuti as the sole plaintiff. Doc. 13. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to

for alleged RICO violations and has since filed a mo- tion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 17) and motions for default judgment (Docs. 10 and 18). Defendants Kelcy Warren and Michael Hennigan filed a motion to dismiss and opposi- tion to the motion for temporary restraining order and motion for default judgment. Doc. 19. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

. The magistrate judge issued a report, Doc. 23, finding that defendants have not been properly served, plaintiff is not en- titled to a default judgment, plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible RICO claim, and plaintiff's RICO claims are barred by the applicable statute of limita- tions. The report concludes that defendants’ motion to dis- miss is properly granted and that complaint should be dis- missed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). The report additionally concludes that the court should deny

the motions for default judgment and a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff filed written objections to the report. Docs. 32 and 33. Plaintiff did not file “specific written objections to the pro- posed findings and recommendations,” as contemplated by Rule 72(b)(2), but instead asserts that the magistrate judge im- properly ruled on his case without his consent. Plaintiff is thus entitled to de novo review only on that subject. And plaintiff misunderstands the referral to the magistrate judge. The case was referred to the magistrate judge to address all pretrial matters to the full extent of

(b). Consistent with § 636(b)(1), the magistrate judge entered proposed findings and recommendations on the motions to dismiss, for a default judgment, and for a temporary restraining order, and the magistrate judge afforded plaintiff an opportunity to file writ- ten objections. That referral is not governed by Rule 73 and does not require a party’s consent. As to the substance of Judge Mitchell’s findings, the court finds no clear error, abuse of discretion, or legal conclusions contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989). In contravention of Local Rule CV-72(c), which limits objections to eight pages, plaintiff responded to the magistrate judge’s report by filing seven additional docu- ments totaling 103 pages, reurging his claims and his requests for default judgment and temporary restraining order. Docs. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, and 35. It is proper to disregard those filings as in violation of the local rules. But even considering those filings in the alternative, none of them challenge the re- port’s findings that defendants have not been properly served, plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment, plain- tiff’s conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a plausible RICO claim, and plaintiff’s RICO claims are barred by the ap- plicable statute of limitations. For the foregoing reasons, the court overrules the objec- tions and adopts the magistrate judge’s report. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) is granted, and the court denies plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Docs. 10 and 18) and motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 17). This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff’s notice of rogatory appointment and attachments (Docs. 34 and 35) are stricken from the rec- ord. That purported notice of appointment seeks improper re- lief, has no basis in law, and has no purpose other than to add confusion. Any motion not previously ruled on is denied. So ordered by the court on March 3, 2020. habek. J “CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-3-