UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00243 Bobby Michael Dennis, Plaintiff, V. Paul J. Mascot et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Bobby Dennis filed this action against defendants as a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 1. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and has not requested to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. The magistrate judge, screening the complaint pur- suant to

(e)(2)(B), noted that deficiency and is- sued a report and recommendation that plaintiff’s claims be dis- missed with prejudice. Doc. 3. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s allegations failed to state a claim and deemed them frivolous. /d. at 3-4. The magistrate judge also warned that future filings of frivolous cases may result in sanc- tions. Jd. at 4. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a letter regarding his case that the court liberally construes as objections. Doc. 5. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and rec- ommendation de novo.

(b)(1). Conducting a de novo review, the court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. /d.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff’s response does not address the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation or the sufficiency of his allegations and fails to provide any cogent meaning to his claims. Rather, plaintiff makes several statements about him being a rightful North American landowner and submits that the federal govern- ment must vacate certain properties. Doc. 5 at 2-3. These state- ments fail to state a viable claim. See Westfall v. Davis, No. 7:18-

-l-

cv-00023,

, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2018) (“[t]hese arguments derive from the so-called sovereign citizen movement and are legally frivolous.”) report and recommendation adopted,

(N.D. Tex. May 29, 2018). Moreover, despite plaintiff’s filings, the basis for this lawsuit remains un- clear. He lists numerous causes of action with little factual sup- port. Even for pro se litigants, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions” are insuffi- cient. Zaylor v. Books A Million, Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted). As such, Plaintiff’s objec- tions are meritless. For the portions of the magistrate judge’s report that are un- objected to, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommen- dation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes to 1983 addition. Having reviewed the remainder of the record and find- ing no clear error, the court accepts the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations (Doc. 3). Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. Further, plaintiff is warned that filing future friv- olous actions may result in sanctions. So ordered by the court on September 22, 2025. alka, fabled BARKER United States District Judge

-2-