IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ALLEN GLENN THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) GIRMA ABEBE TEKLE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No, 3:19-CV-1049-C-BH ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss should be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. '

The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made.

(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs objections should be OVERRULED.’ The Court has further conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is

' Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on February 7, 2020. * To the extent Plaintiff requests that an evidentiary hearing be held, the Court is of the opinion that the same should be DENIED.

therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.’ SO ORDERED this Id day of February, 2020.

fe ia aLrarer We jo7"7 \ 4, / \‘SAM&CU IMayk S SENIOR UNIXED STATES DISARIGT JUDGE

\

* Defendants’ Alternative Motions for a More Definite Statement are DENIED AS MOOT.