UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00215 David Lavord Dodd, Plaintiff, V. Palestine Police Department et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging depriva- tions of his constitutional rights. Doc. 1. He did not pay the filing fee. The case was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a re- port and recommendation. Doc. 3. The magistrate judge con- cluded that plaintiff's lawsuit should be barred by

(g)’s three-strikes rule. Jd. at 2-3. Therefore, the magis- trate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit with prej- udice as to the refiling of another in-forma-pauperis lawsuit rais- ing the same claims, but without prejudice as to the refiling of this lawsuit upon payment of the filing fee or proof of imminent dan- ger. Jd. at 3-4. Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 4. First, he objected that he was arrested without probable cause. Jd. at 1. Second, he objected that he fears for his life because an officer told him “that [the officer] will be seeing [plaintiff] on the outside,” that same officer previ- ously choked him, other officers have threatened inmates, and in- mates have died in his jail. Jd. 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

-l-

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

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Plaintiff’s objections lack merit. He does not show that his complaint pleads an imminent threat of danger or that his suit is otherwise not barred by the three-strikes rule. Instead, his first objection merely recites the allegations in his complaint. And his second objection shows only a generalized fear of harm. Allega- tions of past harm coupled with speculation of future harm are insufficient to show imminent danger under § 1915(g). See Floyd v. Lumpkin, No. 22-40693,

, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing Bavios v. O’Guin,

(5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). Having reviewed the report de novo and being satisfied that there is no error, the court accepts its findings and recommenda- tions. Plaintiffs claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the re- filing of another in-forma-pauperis lawsuit raising the same claims, but without prejudice as to the refiling of this lawsuit upon payment of the filing fee or proof of imminent danger. Any pend- ing motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 28, 2025. —[iechonhe BARKER United States District Judge

-2-