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

LORENZO ALLEN THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:21-CV-00692-P

MICHEAL CAGEL ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant Hafer’s Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Cagel’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motions”). See ECF No. 31, 32. This action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton for submission to this Court of findings, conclusions, and recommendations (“FCR”) pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). On October 17, 2022, Judge Cureton submitted Findings and Conclusions and recommended that the Court grant the Motions. See ECF No. 40. Objections to Judge Cureton’s FCR were due on October 31, 2022.

Plaintiff failed to submit objections by the deadline and submitted a filing titled “Plaintiff Objections to the Magistrates FCR Regarding Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(c)” on November 4, 2022. See ECF No. 42. Not only was the filing untimely, but it also fails to identify what findings to which Plaintiff objects and appears to be merely a response to Defendant Cagel’s Motions. “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Here, Plaintiff’s filing—even liberally construed—fails to identify the findings to which they object liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed... .”). Despite this and in the interest of justice, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the purported objections in accordance with

(b)(1). After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the FCR of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 40), the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Conclusions as its own. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Hafer’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) and Defendant Cagel’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) and DISMISSES this action. SO ORDERED on this 12th day of December 2022.

Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE