UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

ANDRES LUCERO, § § Plaintiff, § § No. 1:25-cv-00509-DAE vs. § § § MONI BOLTON, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Lane on April 24, 2025. (Dkt. # 4.) Plaintiff Andres Lucero, who is proceeding pro se, has not filed objections. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Recommendation and the information contained in the record, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. (Dkt. # 18.) BACKGROUND This case was filed in this Court on April 4, 2025, by Plaintiff Andres Lucero, proceeding pro se. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege multiple crimes against himself or his wife by various defendants. (See Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis on the same day. (Dkt. # 2.) Pursuant to a standing order, this case was referred to Judge Lane for resolution of

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, as well as a recommendation as to whether the case should be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to

(e). (Dkt. # 3.) Judge Lane issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis and the instant Report and Recommendations on April 24, 2025. (Dkt. # 4.) After reviewing the initial filings, Judge Lane concluded that the Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous under

(e), and that this Court should warn the Plaintiff that continuing to file frivolous or duplicative suits may results in imposition of monetary sanctions and a pre-filing bar. (Id. at 3.) The Report further clarifies that even if Plaintiff does

allege a crime against himself or his wife, this Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no allegation the parties are diverse, and his claims do not implicate federal law. (Id.) On April 2025, the Report was mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail. (See

Dkt. # 5.) The Certified Mail Return Receipt indicates that an agent at the address signed for delivery on May 15, 2025. Plaintiff thereafter did not file objections within 14 days. However, Plaintiff filed an additional Supporting Affidavit on

June 5, 2025 (Dkt. # 7), a Notice on June 13, 2025 (Dkt. # 8), a second Supporting Affidavit on July 17, 2025 (Dkt. # 9), and a Supplement to his Original Complaint on July 21, 2025 (Dkt. #10.)

APPLICABLE LAW The Court must conduct a de novo review of any of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See

(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). The objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations that the party wishes to have the district court consider. Thomas

v. Arn,

(1985). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). Findings to which no specific objections are made do not require de novo review; the Court need only determine whether the Recommendation is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, conclusory objections that fail to point out with specificity any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis are not cognizable,” and the

Court here will not parse through the record to infer exactly what it is Plaintiff’s objections are based upon. See Palomo v. Collier, No. 2-23-CV-37,

, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2024) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara

v. Garber,

(5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins,

, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993)). DISCUSSION

After careful consideration of the filings and the record, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court finds that Judge Lane’s analysis is reasonable and absent of clear error. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal on subject matter

jurisdiction grounds since Plaintiffs do not appear to allege the parties are diverse, and his claims do not implicate federal law. (Dkt. # 4 at 3.) The Report notes that this is “despite [Plaintiff’s] “assertion of various constitutional provisions” in his

complaint. Construing Plaintiff’s later-filed Supporting Affidavits, Notice, and Supplement to his Complaint as broadly as possible, this Court finds that Plaintiff does not cure the deficiencies in his Complaint as to this Court’s jurisdiction. (See Dkt. ## 7, 8, 9, 10.)

In his later filings, Plaintiff does list a variety of state statutes in his allegations against the various Defendants. In his first filing after the Report, Plaintiff references two federal statutes:

(a) (defining various

terms related to sex trafficking) and

(a)(15) (defining “immigrant”). (Dkt. # 7.) However, Plaintiff fails to make accompanying factual allegations under any federal statute that would lead this Court to assert its

jurisdiction over this case. See

(authorizing federal question jurisdiction);

(authorizing diversity jurisdiction). “[M]ere listing of federal statutes does not, without more, create federal question jurisdiction.”

Smith v. Dell, Inc., 1:19-CV-967-RP,

, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020) (quoting Johnson v. City of Denton, No. 417-CV-342-RAS-CAN,

, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-453,

(E.D. Tex. July 19, 2018)). The Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s arguments provide no basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore must be dismissed as frivolous under

(e)(2).

Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and the applicable law, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the reasoning and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s Report in full. (Dkt. # 4.) Accordingly, the Court

dismisses Plaintiff’s claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Lastly, given that this is at least the third frivolous case that Plaintiff Lucero has filed in less than one year, the Court warns Plaintiff that continuing to file frivolous or duplicative suits in this

court may result in imposition of monetary sanctions and a pre-filing bar. CONCLUSION For the reasons given, the Court ADOPTS U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Lane’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. # 4.) IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THE CASE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Austin, Texas, November 4, 2025

Senior U.S. District Judge