IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

ROOSEVELT AUGUSTIN, § Plaintiff, § § v. § NO. 1:25-CV-01577-ADA-DH § CHEROKEE NATION SYSTEM § SOLUTIONS, § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell regarding Plaintiff Roosevelt Augustin’s claims. Dkt. 4. The report recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to

(e)(2)(B).

The Report and Recommendation was filed October 9, 2025. This Court hereby adopts Judge Howell’s Recommendations. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court.

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections and, in the alternative, a request for leave to file a First Amended Complaint on November 12, 2025. Dkt. 7. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, the objections to the Report and Recommendation, the proposed First Amended Complaint, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff's proposed amendments to his Complaint would not cure the deficiencies identified by Judge Howell. Judge Howell’s Report explained that Plaintiff did not allege he engaged in a formal complaint or participated in any proceeding under Title VII, so he failed to state a claim for retaliation upon which relief could be granted. See Dkt. 4 at 4. Plaintiff's proposed amendments still fail to allege protected activity under Title VII. Plaintiff's proposed amendments would be merely asserting that he complained of “discriminatory” treatment, but Plaintiff fails to show that he clearly identified any discriminatory treatment to his supervisors or employers, or engaged in protected activity under Title VII. Merely asserting that treatment was “discriminatory,” without more, does not convince the Court that a specific discriminatory practice was at issue, for the purposes of supporting Plaintiffs Title VII claim. The Court will adopt Judge Howell’s recommendation and decline to grant Plaintiff leave to file the proposed amended complaint, attached to his objections. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, Dkt. 4, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to CLOSE this case. SIGNED on December 10, 2025.

Chr 2Wor SOND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE