Pruitt v. Biden, Jr.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION KENNETH ALLEN PRUITT, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 9:21-CV-00013-TH-ZJH v. JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR., et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 19, 2021, the court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for pre-trial management. Pending before the court is Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss.” Doc. No. 60. On August 23, 2022, Judge Hawthorn issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended granting Defendants’ motion. Doc. No. 63. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 64. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff has failed to establish he has standing to bring this case. The court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusions are correct, and that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. 64) are OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 63) is ADOPTED. Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 60) is GRANTED.