Harrison v. Collier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION GREGORY JAY HARRISON, TDCJ-CID No. 02236153, Plaintiff, Vv. 2:24-CV-127-Z-BR BRYAN COLLIER, et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) of the United States Magistrate Judge to dismiss this case as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 (e)(2)(B). ECF No. 9. Objections to the FCR have been filed. ECF No. 11. Objections to the FCR must be “specific” and “put the district court on notice of the urged error.” Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 511 (5th Cir. 1984), Where a party objecting to the FCR fails to assert specific objections, the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Just so here. Plaintiff merely rehashes the same issues already addressed by the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. See ECF No. 11 (continuing to assert that missing money orders and mail delays are a “constitutional violation of the freedom of speech”). After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the District Judge OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 11) and concludes that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is correct. ECF No. 9. It is therefore ORDERED that the FCR of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Any remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. Laue August ft , 2025 MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE