FILED October 14, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION py NM DEPUTY MARK ANTHONY ZAVALA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § NO. SA-25-C V-00567-OLG § ELBERT REED and AARON § GABRIEL MARTINEZ, § § 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 16, 2025, concerning pro se Plaintiff Mark Anthony Zavala’s proposed complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 8.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. Frp. R. Clv. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R on July 24, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 11).! 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,

(5th 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)). Any portions of the

'The Court notes that on August 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed another document containing objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 15.) Because Plaintiff was served with a copy of the R&R on July 22, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 13), his deadline to submit objections was August 5. However, the Court has reviewed his subsequent filing and finds that it does not affect the Court’s ruling herein.

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson,

. Although Plaintiff’s objections are unclear, the Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the recommendation and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Chestney’s R&R (Dkt. No. 8) and, for the reasons set forth therein, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This case is CLOSED, and any pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT, It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this | day of October 2025. Sn ORLANDO L. GARCIA □□ United States District Judge