UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED October 28, 2025 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CLERK. US, DISTRICT COURT SAN ANTONIO DIVISION WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HENRY B. BERROCAL, § py;_NM □□ § Plaintiff, § § v. § § JUDGE ROBERT J. VALDESPINO, § BEXAR COUNTY PRECINCT 2; § NO. SA-25-CV-00521-OLG DISTRICT JUDGE LAURA § SALINAS, BEXAR COUNTY § COURTHOUSE; JOHN DOES 1-20; § ALEXANDRIA REYES; ROBERT § ALCARAZ; and WILDER LEONARD § ROBISON; § § 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 21, 2025, concerning pro se Plaintiff Henry B. Berrocal’s complaint. See R&R, Dkt. No. 25. 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 timely filed objections to the R&R on July 23, 2025. See Dkt. No. 28. 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.” Fep. R. □□□ 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 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th 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 entirety of the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Chestney’s R&R (Dkt. No. 25) and, for the reasons set forth therein: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to REFUND the filing fee previously paid by Plaintiff; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Service by U.S. Marshals (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e). This case is CLOSED, and all other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. Itis so ORDERED.

SIGNED this day of October 2025.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge