FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 02, 2025 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM GARY T. CRAYTON, § DEPUTY § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. SA-24-CV-1301-OLG § STATE LEVEL COURT 379TH § CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s (“Judge Chestney”) Report and Recommendation (the “Recommendation”) (Dkt. No. 3), filed on December 3, 2024, concerning Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 1) and proposed complaint (the “Complaint”) (Dkt. No. 1-1). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Recommendation. ! When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the entire record. See U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Rather, the Court need only review the magistrate judge’s recommendation to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and is of the opinion that it is correct. Accordingly, the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3) is ACCEPTED and, for the reasons set forth therein, the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 1)

1 After Judge Chestney issued the Recommendation, Plaintiff submitted multiple letters to the Court. See Dkt. Nos. 6— 7. These letters neither mention the Recommendation nor lodge any specific objections thereto. See

is GRANTED, and the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-1) is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to

(e). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. IT ISSO ORDERED. SIGNED this L day of January, 2025. Ow ORLANDO L. GARCIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ry