UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 16, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk LAREDO DIVISION

JANE DOE A/K/A LOLA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-40 § HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, et al., § § Defendants. § § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 77), pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendant Hector Rodriguez. The Court entered default judgment against Defendant Rodriguez as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution and for violation of bodily integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, but it deferred ruling on damages while claims against other Defendants were pending. (Dkt. No. 34). Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal as to all Defendants except Hector Rodriguez. (Dkt. Nos. 69, 70). The Court referred the Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 24), as to Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Rodriguez to the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. No. 57). In his report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge dos Santos recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 24), as to Plaintiff’s claims for damages be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Dkt. No. 77 at 1). Plaintiff is not opposed to the Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 78), and no objections were filed by any party. Given that there are no objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1), the Court reviewed the report and recommendation and applied the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989). 1 / 2 Finding no abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous findings, the Court hereby ADOPTS IN WHOLE the report and recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (Dkt. No. 24), as to Plaintiffs claims for damages is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, Plaintiff is AWARDED $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages against Defendant Rodriguez; $402 in court filing fees against Defendant Rodriguez; and post-judgment interest, which will accrue at the applicable statutory rate, against Defendant Rodriguez.

(b). Plaintiff's request for pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses other than the court filing fee in this case are DENIED in their entirety. A final judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED on October 16, 2025. 4 A. Kazen / | ted States District Mudge

2/2