IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ALEXIS TOVAR, Individually and as Next § Friend of D.P., a Minor, and PHILLIP REYES, § as Next Friend of A.R. and J.R., Minors, § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-23-CV-847-FB § THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS; § ALFRED FLORES; ELEAZAR ALEJANDRO; § and NATHANIEL VILLALOBOS, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are (1) the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed May 28, 2025 (docket #71); (2) Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed June 9, 2025 (docket #74); and (3) Defendant Officers’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation filed June 23, 2025 (docket #75). Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of them. See

(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989). On the other hand, any Report or Recommendation to which there are objections requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission,

(5th Cir. 1987). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Bemporad recommends that the Defendant, City of San Antonio, Texas’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (docket #57) and The Defendant Officers’ Second (12)(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (docket #61) be GRANTED. The Court has reviewed all of Plaintiffs’ objections as well as the Defendant Officers’ response thereto and has conducted a de novo review of those issues properly

raised by the Plaintiffs in their objections. The Court finds, after careful consideration of the record and the Report and Recommendation, that the Plaintiffs’ objections lack merit and are overruled. Therefore, the Court hereby accepts, approves, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation (docket #71), incorporates herein the arguments and authorities presented in the Defendant Officers’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation (docket #75), and finds the recommendation should be accepted such that Defendant, City of San Antonio, Texas’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (docket #57) and The Defendant Officers’ Second (12)(b)(6)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (docket #61) shall be GRANTED and this case DISMISSED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed in this case on May 28, 2025 (docket #71) is ACCEPTED such that Defendant, City of San Antonio, Texas’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (docket #57) and The Defendant Officers’ Second (12)(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (docket #61) are GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are also DISMISSED, and this case is now CLOSED.' It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of September, 2025. ee . eet CC eee FRED BIE UNITE TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

~The claims against Defendant Officer Nathaniel Villalobos were dismissed by the Court in its acceptance of the first Report and Recommendation entered in this case on September 23, 2024 (docket #52). When the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint in response to the Report and Recommendation on December 13, 2024 (docket #56), they did not assert a claim against Defendant Officer Nathaniel Villalobos. -3-