Kenon L. Burns v. The Department of the United States Army, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

KENON L. BURNS, § Plaintiff, § § v. § NO. 6:23-CV-00698-ADA-DTG § THE DEPARTMENT OF THE § UNITED STATES ARMY, et al., § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)6) (Dkt. No. 25). Dkt. No. 66. The report recommends that the Motion be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id. The Report and Recommendation was filed March 27, 2026. This Court hereby adopts Judge Gilliland’s Recommendations. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on April 7, 2026. Dkt. No. 67. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, the objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. The Court hereby rejects Plaintiff's jurisdictional arguments and agrees with Judge Gilliland’s reasoning. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, Dkt. No. 66, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions in this case (Dkt. Nos. 44, 47, 48, 53, 57, 58, 59, 63) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED on April 8, 2026.

□□□ □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE