FILED August 07, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY MATTHEW ANDREW GARCES, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-25-C V-00685-OLG ROSE DOE, et al., : Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed July 1, 2025, concerning Plaintiff’s pro se complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R were filed the same day. (See Dkt. No. 13.) When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996)). Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review and finds that the R&R is in all things correct and that Plaintiffs objections should be and hereby are OVERRULED. The Court therefore ADOPTS Judge Chestney’s R&R (Dkt. No. 8) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a federal cause of action. See

(e). This case is CLOSED.

Itisso ORDERED.

SIGNED this day of August 2025. \ ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge