FILED October 09, 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. § § DR. ROLANDO SAENZ, Clinician at § San Lucas Surgical Associates; § NO. SA-25-C V-00605-OLG YVONNE, Insurance Verifier Acting as § Agent of San Lucas; SAN LUCAS 8 SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, Place of § public accommodation under ADA; and § JOHN DOE SECURITY GUARDS, § Agents of San Lucas, § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed August 14, 2025, concerning pro se Plaintiff Matthew Andrew Garces’s proposed complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 14.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. Feb. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on August 14, 2025, and timely filed objections the very next day (see Dkt. No. 16). 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,

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

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

(Sth Cir. 1987) (emphasis added) (quoting Netiles 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 Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson,

. The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear errors and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 14) and, for the reasons set forth therein, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e) for failure to state a federal cause of action giving rise to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. This case is CLOSED, and any pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED this \ day of October 2025.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge