IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

ALFRED C. DIZON, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP

 §

VECTRUS SYSTEMS CORPORATION, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36); filed January 

9, 2023; Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43), filed February 13, 2023; 

United States Magistrate Judge Ray’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (ECF No. 54), 

filed April 27, 2023; Plaintiff’s Response (ECF No. 59), filed May 9, 2023; and Defendant’s 

Response (ECF No. 60), filed May 18, 2023.

Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Ray’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

(FCR) on the basis that Judge Ray “could not clearly see the big picture,” claiming the Magistrate 

Judge overlooked Plaintiff’s “Trial Exhibits” and that the Defendant failed to comply with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26 disclosures. Pl’s Response 1, ECF No. 59. Generally, for dispositive motions, parties 

are entitled to de novo review of any part of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that 

has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, when the objections are 

frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature, the Court need not conduct such de novo review. See

Thompson v. Bumpas, No. 4:22-cv-0640-P, 2022 WL 17585271, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2022)

(citing Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987)). For an objection 

to be specific enough to warrant de novo review, it “must identify the specific finding or 

Case 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP Document 65 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 729
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place 

in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found.” 

United States v. Mathis, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559, 564 (E.D. Tex. 2020), R. & R. adopted by 458 F. 

Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2020). Even affording Plaintiff’s objections the proper leniency for a prose litigant, Plaintiff’s objections do not meet this specificity standard. See generally ECF No. 59. 

Plaintiff first objects that the Magistrate Judge based his Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation solely on each party’s summary judgement briefing and that, instead, the 

Magistrate Judge should have considered the Plaintiff’s “Trial Exhibits.” These objections are not 

related to any particular determination made by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, these are 

generalized, conclusory objections to the FCR as a whole. Furthermore, even if these objections 

were considered to meet the specificity standard, the Court finds the objections are meritless. The 

Magistrate Judge makes many references and citations to specific evidence within Vectrus’ 

Appendix, clearly showing that the parties’ briefings were not the sole basis for the FCR. See 

generally ECF No. 54. Furthermore, it would not have been proper for the Magistrate Judge to 

consider Plaintiff’s “Trial Exhibits” because Plaintiff failed to include them with his motion for 

summary judgement, in an appendix, as required by the local rules. See ECF No. 36.

Plaintiff’s objections regarding the discovery process also do not meet the specificity 

standard needed to invoke de novo review. The Plaintiff fails to identify any particular 

determination made by the Magistrate Judge to which he is objecting. Even if these objections 

were considered to meet the specificity standard, the objections are without merit. The Plaintiff 

and the Defendant entered into a voluntary Confidentiality Agreement at the discovery stage of 

this case. See Def.’s Response 5, ECF No. 60. Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, the 

Defendant then produced “more than 2,100 pages of documents to Plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff claims 

Case 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP Document 65 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 730
that prior to this agreement, the Defendant initially indicated that it would comply with 

Plaintiff’s earlier discovery requests and/or subpoenas. This is a mischaracterization, as indicated 

by Defendant’ motions to quash and responses in opposition to such subpoenas. See ECF Nos. 

23, 33, 48, 51. 

However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not rise to the level of 

specificity needed to invoke de novo review, this Court need not consider such objections. See

Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Instead, the Court 

reviews the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, 

the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 

are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) and GRANTS 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 

are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED on this 30th day of May, 2023.

Case 7:22-cv-00040-O-BP Document 65 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 731