Joshua Brickman v. Dr. Mahesh Dave, City of College Station, Texas, and The...

cei AYES DISTRICT o> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUN 2 6 2026 CKMAN, ERN DISTRIC Plaintiff, v. 23-CV-344 (JLS) (JJM) DR. MAHESH DAVE, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Joshua Brickman filed an amended complaint in this action on December 8, 2028, alleging claims based on a court-ordered “experimental and invasive neurological procedure” that he underwent at some point between November 2001 and December 2002. Dkt. 3 at 5. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 12.

On December 30, 2025, Defendant City of College Station, Texas (“Defendant City”) filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 19. Plaintiff opposed this motion, Dkts. 25 and 28, and Defendant City rephed, Dkt. 29. On January 22, 2026, Defendant Dr. Mahesh Dave (“Defendant Dave”) filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. 26. Plaintiff opposed this motion, Dkt. 28, and Defendant Dave replied, Dkt. 31. In addition, Plaintiff filed motions to obtain criminal court records, Dkts. 4 and 35, and a motion to direct service by U.S. Marshal, Dkt. 34. On April 8, 2026, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkts. 19 and 26, and that the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to replead. Dkt. 36 at 6. He also recommended that Plaintiffs motions to obtain criminal court records and to direct service by U.S. Marshal, Dkts. 4, 34, and 35, be denied as moot.

Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkts. 37 and 39. Defendant Dave opposed Plaintiffs objections, Dkt. 40, and Plaintiff replied, Dkts. 41 and 42.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(6)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts Judge McCarthy’s recommendation.

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkts. 19 and 26, are granted. Plaintiffs amended complaint, Dkt. 3, is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to replead. Additionally, Plaintiffs motions to obtain criminal court records, Dkts. 4 and 35, and Plaintiffs motion to direct service by U.S. Marshal, Dkt. 34, are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2026 Buffalo, New York JOHN SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE