PRISONER CIVIL ACTION 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ORINDA D. EVANS, District Judge.
Now before the Court are the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 6) and Plaintiffs objections thereto (Doc. 8).
In reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to accept the recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983 Addition, Subdivision (b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiffs initial complaint and gave him an opportunity to amend it to allege a plausible claim for relief, stating:
(Doc. 4 at 4-5 (citation omitted)). The Magistrate Judge also stated:
(Id. at 6).
Plaintiff filed a virtually identical "amended" complaint (Doc. 5), except for the voluminous but irrelevant material attached thereto (see id. at 11-81), and the Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissing that complaint without prejudice
(Doc. 6 at 6).
Plaintiffs "objections" are a restatement of his initial claims for a third time, along with an attempt to add new claims and new defendants. (See generally Doc. 8). Plaintiff has not filed a specific objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and the Court declines to consider the new allegations in his objections because Plaintiff did not present those allegations to the Magistrate Judge, even though he was given a second opportunity to do so. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) ("hold[ing] that a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge").
Plaintiffs objections (Doc. 8) are therefore