IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ANTRECE BROOKS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00306-P-BP § ALCON et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCRs”) in this case. ECF No. 48. Pro se Plaintiff Antrece Brooks filed a document that appears to be a combination of her pleading and a different brief (ECF No. 49), as well as an attachment (ECF No. 49-1) that appears to object to the FCRs. However, the lead document and attachment contain no specific objection to the FCRs as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) and

(b)(1). Defendants have filed a response in in support of the FCRs. ECF No. 52. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. As analyzed and explained in the FCRs (ECF No. 48 at 5–6), Plaintiff’s assertion of subject matter jurisdiction under

is misguided as “OSHA does not create a private cause of action.” Ayala v. Ledezma, No. 3:13-CV-703-O,

, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2014) (O’Connor, J.). Thus, Plaintiff’s mere reassertion of a position already analyzed and rejected in the FCRs is not a proper objection under FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and

(b)(1), so the Court analyzes the FCRs for clear error. See Arredondo vy. Torres, No. 3:14-CV-1934-P,

, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2014) (“Because Plaintiff has asserted no specific objection to the FCR and the Court cannot reasonably construe the subsequent filing of Plaintiff as stating any specific objection, the Court has reviewed the FCR for clear error.”). Finding no clear error, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 29 and 34) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED on this 20th day of April, 2021.

ne 7 breton J. Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE