IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

JHAMERRICK MILTON, #01885551, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-138-JDK-KNM § DAVID A. O’TOOLE, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Jhamerrick Milton, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil rights lawsuit under

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. On July 3, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket No. 7. Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 9. Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report must

specifically identify those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the Court. See Nettles v. Wainright,

, 410 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). The Report recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims because he failed to allege any facts that would state a claim against any party. Of the several Defendants named in the complaint, Plaintiff only mentions one in the statement of his claim, and his only allegation against her is that she “denied access to courts” on a specified

date. Docket No. 1 at 3–4. For the reasons explained by the Report, that allegation fails to state any claim for relief. See Docket No. 7 at 4. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his pleading to cure its deficiencies and failed to do so. See Docket No. 4. Plaintiff’s objections identify no error in the Report. His submission includes discussion of the Texas Rules of Evidence, but the Report does not concern any

evidentiary issues. See Docket No. 9. Likewise, Plaintiff’s discussion of his oath of American citizenship or status as a “secured party creditor” has no bearing on the basis for recommended dismissal. See

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs objections (Docket No. 9) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

So ordered and signed on this ) Jul 28, 2025 JERQMY D/KERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE