IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JORGE L. QUINTANA, SR., § Plaintiff § § SA-24-CV-00949-XR -vs- § § RAYMOND RAMOS, MARIA C. § RAMOS, § Defendants §

ORDER On this date, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 3. After careful consideration, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. ANALYSIS I. Legal Standard A party may serve and file objections to a report and recommendation within fourteen days. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), (b)(2). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive [sic] or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996). Courts must review de novo any of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See

(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Any sections that were not clearly objected to are reviewed for clear error to determine whether they are contrary to law. /d.; see also United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989). Il. Analysis Plaintiff timely filed objections. ECF No. 6. Because Plaintiff timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews it de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its own order. Any objections that are not discussed in the Report and Recommendation are frivolous and need not be addressed. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, itis ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad (ECF No. 3) is ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 1) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 will follow. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 5th day of February, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT