UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHELONDRIA GAY,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-CV-0979-P

EMERALD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 19. The 

United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a 

Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff filed an 

“objection,” but stated no specific reasons for the objection. Thus, the 

Magistrate Judge’s FCR is ripe for review. 

For the following reasons the Court the Court OVERRULES

Plaintiffs’ Objections, ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s 

FCR, and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 19. As such, 

Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

LEGAL STANDARD

A magistrate judge’s FCR is reviewed de novo if a party timely 

objects. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). And the district court may accept, reject, 

or modify the recommendations or findings in whole or in part. Id. But 

a party objecting to the FCR must “file specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). This 

means an objection must be “sufficiently specific to put the district court 

on notice of the urged error.” Williams v. K&B Equip. Co., 724 F.2d 508, 

511 (5th Cir. 1984). But where an objection to the FCR is only general, 

Case 4:22-cv-00979-P Document 46 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 225
2

the Court reviews the objected conclusion for plain error. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996).

To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which the 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), report and 

recommendation adopted, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559 (E.D. Tex. 2020). If the 

objecting party fails to assert specific objections, the district court need 

not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Battle v. U.S. 

Parole Comm’n, 834 F.3d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS

In the FCR, the Magistrate Judge conducted a thorough analysis of 

Plaintiff’s difficult to comprehend complaint and found that this Court 

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all her claims. ECF No. 39 at 6. 

The Magistrate Judge further recommended that this Court decline 

exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law 

claims. As a result, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all 

of Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. 

Plaintiff filed an “objection,” but stated no specific reasons for the 

objection. See ECF No. 45. As such, the Court conducts a plain error 

review of the FCR. Having reviewed the FCR for plain error and finding 

none, the Court believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of this Court. 

Even if Plaintiff made specific objections, and this Court undertook 

a de novo review, her complaint would still be woefully deficient in every 

legally significant area.

As a result, Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is hereby 

GRANTED. The Court further refuses to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims based on the 

factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and other considerations of

judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Case 4:22-cv-00979-P Document 46 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 226
3

The Court therefore ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED on this 11th day of August 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00979-P Document 46 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 227