Southem District of Texa: ENTERED July 31, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner. □□□□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SEAN HICKS, § § Plaintiff, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00126 § BRYAN COLLIER, ef al., § § Defendants. § . ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 51). The M&R recommends that the Court: e Deny the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to Sergeant Flores, Officer Balderas, and Officer Garner; □

e Deny the qualified immunity motion as to Sergeant Flores, Officer Balderas, and Officer Garner, without prejudice; and e Grant the Rule 12(b)(6) and qualified immunity motion as to Sergeant Alaniz and dismiss Plaintiffs claims against her with prejudice. Id. at 22. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.! See

(b)(1); FED. 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

' Plaintiff's mail was returned as undeliverable. As a party, Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. LOCAL RULE 83.4; see also Martinez-Reyes v. United States, No. 7:12-CR-1787-1,

, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (Ormsby, Mag. J.) (collecting cases), adopted, No. CR M-12-1787-1,

(S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Crane, C.J.). 1/2

States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell vy. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700,

, 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. 51). Accordingly, the Court: e DENIES the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, (D-E. 46), as to Sergeant Flores, Officer Balderas, and Officer Garner; e DENIES the qualified immunity motion, (D.E. 46), as to Sergeant Flores, Officer Balderas, and Officer Garner, without prejudice; and e GRANTS the Rule 12(b)(6) and qualified immunity motion, (D.E. 46), as to Sergeant Alaniz and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs claims against her.

SO ORDERED. ¢ / DA . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas July 3/5%3025

2/2