Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-00068
11-17-2022
JUAN MANUEL ALBARADO, et al., “Plaintiffs,” v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., “Defendants.”
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rolando Olvera United States District Judge
Before the Court are these pleadings: Plaintiff Juan Manuel Albarado's “First Amended Original Complaint for Breach of Contract with Suit to Quiet Title to Padre Island” (“Amended Complaint”), with supporting submissions (Dkt. Nos. 15,15-1,17, and 17) and “Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis” (“IFP Motion”) (Dkt. No. 2), “Magistrate Judge's Report and aRecommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 18), and Plaintiffs “Reply and Objection to Magistrate Judge” (“Objections”) (Dkt. No. 21).
A party may contest the proposed findings and conclusions in a report and recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report and recommendation. Party's objections to portions of a report and recommendation entitle him to de novo review by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections must specifically identify findings or recommendations in the R&R. The court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F,2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Proposed findings and recommendations to which no objections were filed are reviewed for clear error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Quinn v. Guerrero, 863 F.3d 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2017).
Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. No. 21. But Plaintiffs objections are conclusive and do not address any plausible claim for relief. In summary, Plaintiffs objections are a general objection to the R&R. The Court need not consider such objections and has therefore reviewed the R&R and the record for clear error. See Stafford v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105778 (W.D.T.X 2019) (citing Battle, 834 F.2d at 421; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note) (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation.”). Finding no clear error, the R&R (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED.
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383,387 (5th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiffs IFP Motion (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 15) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to close this case.