UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO FILED URT Apri pril 30, 2024 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT SAN ANTONIO DIVISION WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BY: NM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX § DEPUTY REL.; and TAMMY R. FABIAN, § § Plaintiffs, § § CIVIL NO. SA-23-CV-01554-OLG Vv. § § GARY RICHARD COLTON, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed March 25, 2024, concerning Plaintiff's claims under the False Claims Act,

, et seq., filed in connection with her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.’ (See R&R, Dkt. No. 11.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The R&R was mailed by certified mail on March 25, 2024 (see Dkt. No. 14) and received by Plaintiff as of April 4, 2024 (see Dkt. No. 16). To date, no objections have been filed. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989); cf

(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of

'See W.D. Tex. Standing Order Regarding Court Docket Management of Cases Involving Applications to Proceed in Forma Pauperis for the San Antonio Division (effective Oct. 8, 2019), available at Standing-Order-Regarding-Court-Docket-Management-of-Cases-Involving-A pplications-to-Proceed- In-Forma-Pauperis-for-the-San-Antonio-Division-100819.pdf (uscourts. gov).

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made.”) After such review, the Court finds that the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 11) and, for the reasons set forth therein, the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 5) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to

(e)(2). This case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this a □ day of April, 2024. Soe. □ ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge