UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ELI FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. SA-23-CV-01430-JKP

HEB,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Eli Flores’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Flores’s objections, and Defendant HEB’s response to Flores’s objections. ECF Nos. 34,39,42,43. Also before the Court is Flores’s Mo- tion to Strike HEB’s Response to Objections and HEB’s Response to this Motion. ECF Nos. 44,45,46. Upon consideration, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the R&R, DENIES the Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award, and DENIES the Motion to Strike. This case was administratively closed on July 16, 2025. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to lift the administrative closure and stay and reopen this case. Discussion Magistrate Judge Chestney issued an R&R on Flores’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award on November 6, 2025. Flores filed timely objections, and HEB responded. Flores moved to strike HEB’s response. 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,

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n,

(Sth Cir. 1987)(quoting Net- tles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996)). The district court will review any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are re- viewed for clear error. Wilson

. This Court reviewed all of Flores’s objections and finds most to be recitation of his general arguments supporting his position in this case or conclusory. See generally ECF No. 42. The Court construed the objections liberally and reviewed the R&R de novo. The Court finds the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court, therefore, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chestney’s R&R (ECF NO. 39) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Flores’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (ECF No. 34) is DE- NIED. Flores’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 44) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to lift the administrative closure and stay and reopen this case.

It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 18th day of December, 2025.

/ aden PUCK DW iP STATES DISTRICT JUDGE