Hicks v. Collier

Southern District of Texas ENTERED June 20, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS □ CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SEAN HICKS, § Plaintiff, : V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00126 BRYAN COLLIER, et al, Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 41). The M&R recommends that the Court deny Defendants Bryan Collier and E.

Holmes’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity, (D.E. 38). Jd. at 1.

The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Feb. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 41). Accordingly, the Court DENIES □□ temintes motion without prejudice to their raising a qualified immunity defense later in these proceedings. (D.E. 38).

SO ORDERED.

1/2 \ S\MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas June 872025 2/2