UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00404 Mark Clifton Bradford, Plaintiff, V. Nathaniel Christopher Kummerfeld, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Mark Clifton Bradford, proceeding pro se, filed this complaint alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 3. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, which concluded that the lawsuit should be dismissed with preju- dice for failure to state a claim. Doc. 4 at 11. The report noted plaintiff’s previous lawsuit raised essentially the same claims; thus, this case is barred by res judicata. Jd. at 5. The report further explained that (1) plaintiff failed to properly plead a Bivens claim, (2) the Heck doctrine bars plaintiff’s challenge to his conviction, (3) defendant has prosecutorial immunity from damages liability, and (4) every court that has considered plaintiff’s legal theories has rejected them as nonsensical. Jd. at 6-8. Plaintiff timely ob- jected. Doc. 5. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Plaintiff sued defendant for prosecuting him on wire fraud charges. Doc. 1; see also Doc. 4 at 1, 4. He claims that his criminal

-l-

conviction is void based on legal theories arising from the “sover- eign citizen” movement. See generally Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s objec- tions are rooted in those same legal theories and do not address the report’s reasoning. See generally Doc. 5. The report thor- oughly explained that plaintiff’s legal theories are without merit. Doc. 4 at 7-10. The court agrees and finds that plaintiff’s objec- tions are without merit too. Having reviewed the report de novo and being satisfied that there is no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and ac- cepts the report’s findings and recommendations. The court sua sponte dismisses this case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Askew v. United States, No. 22-10914,

, at *1 & n.1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming sua sponte dismis- sal on the grounds that the complaint, which was based on “sov- ereign citizen” arguments, was “entirely without merit”). Dis- missal of this lawsuit shall not affect plaintiff’s right to challenge his conviction through lawful means or to seek executive clem- ency through appropriate channels. Any pending motions are de- nied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 7, 2025. Cloke —_fabok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-