UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:19-cv-00517 Roxanne Feme Fatel Joganik, Plaintiff, V. East Texas Medical Center et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Roxanne Joganik, proceeding pro se and 7” forma pau- peris, filed this action on November 4, 2019, alleging various civil- rights and constitutional violations. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

(b). Doc. 3. On October 6, 2022, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s remaining § 1557 claim be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Doc. 135. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 136. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). Objections must specifically identify those findings or recom- mendations to which objections are being made. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987). The district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Id.; see Palacios v. United States Marshall Sery., No. MO:11-CV- 00009-RAJ,

, at *21 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012) (finding a generalized and amorphous objection to be friv- olous because it did not specifically object to any part of the magis- trate judge’s report and recommendation). Plaintiff did not object to any part of the magistrate judge’s report with specificity. Plaintiff’s objection is therefore overruled.

To the extent that plaintiff treats the filing of objections as effec- tively a sixth amended complaint without grant of leave, such action is improper. Issues raised for the first time in objections to a magis- trate judge’s report are deemed not properly before the district court. K Invs., Inc. v. B-Gas Lid.,

, at *12 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotations omitted); see United States ». Armstrong,

(5th Cir. 1992) (holding that issues first raised in objections to a magistrate judge’s findings are not properly before the court). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and hav- ing found no error, plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the re- port and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 135) is ac- cepted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. So ordered by the court on October 20, 2022. Conbok. fale BARKER United States District Judge

_2-