UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 19, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ALEX BERNARD JOHNSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00087 § JUAN J. NUNEZ, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On August 23, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 23), recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002- 13. No objections have been timely filed. Plaintiff did send a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court requesting forms to file a new

action, noting the same claims addressed by the memorandum and recommendation, but without specifying any error in the analysis. An objection must point out with particularity the alleged error in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Otherwise, it does not constitute a proper objection and will not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber,

(5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins,

, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993) (finding that right to de novo review is not invoked when a petitioner merely re-urges arguments contained in the original petition). When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 23), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff's § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c);

(e)(2), 19I5A. ORDERED on October 19, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2