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

ASEM FAROOQ,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:24-cv-0120-P

MANHEIM AUTO AUCTION, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recomm- endation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge in this case. ECF No. 18. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 18 at 3. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed several documents that this Court will liberally construe as Objections to the FCR. ECF Nos. 19–26. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the FCR de novo as required by

(b)(1). And the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Plaintiff’s Objections include a copy of his Complaint and a form Motion for Continuance. ECF Nos. 19, 21–24. Because Plaintiff fails to state what he is seeking to continue, his request for a continuance is DENIED. Plaintiff goes on to request a hearing because he claims that evidence relevant to his case has been “suppressed for years.” ECF No. 24 at 1. That request is also DENIED. As for Plaintiff’s substantive objections, he fails to address any legal basis on which the Court could reverse the FCR. The FCR recommended dismissal because Plaintiff failed to file suit within ninety days of his receipt of a right-to-sue letter as required by Title VII. ECF No. 18 at 2. And “[t]he ninety-day limitations period is strictly construed.” Crabtree v. Cyberonics,

, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 7, 2006) (Werlein Jr., J.). Because any supposed legal arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objection do not refute his failure to sue within the requisite limitations period, Plaintiff's Objections (ECF Nos. 19-26) are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the conclusion in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, ADOPTS its reasoning, and ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED on this 18th day of March 2024.

Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE