UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SARA HERRERA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § CIVIL NO. SA:22-CV-01316-OLG UNIVERSITY HEALTH TX VISTA § MEDICAL CENTER, ETHAN D. § HINDS, MELISSA JOHNNIDIS, § § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer. (Dkt. No. 15.) The R&R recommends that Plaintiff Sara Herrera’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) be dismissed as frivolous and that her Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 14) be dismissed as moot. (Id.) See

(e)(2)(B). Herrera was served with a copy of the R&R and timely filed her objections. (See Dkt. No. 17.) When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court must make a de novo determination as to those portions of the recommendation to which an objection is made. U.S. v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989);

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections, however, need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Com’n,

(5th Cir. 1987). Here, Herrera fails to present, and the Court cannot discern, any specific objection to the matters addressed in the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 17.) Nevertheless, the Court has conducted an independent review of the recommendation, the record, and the applicable law and finds that the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. It is therefore ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Farrer’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Sara Herrera’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that Herrera’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 14)

is DISMISSED AS MOOT. This case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this __2_8_t_h_ day of March, 2023.

____________________________ ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge