Kenneth Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc.

March 19, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION KENNETH HAWKINS, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-02194 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § I.C. SYSTEM, INC, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Kenneth Hawkins proceeds here pro se. He filed a complaint against Defendant I.C. System, Inc, regarding debt collection practices of Defendant. See Dkt 3 (first amended complaint). Plaintiff asserts several causes of action in that regard, including violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, willful negligence, and liability of surety principal. See id at ¶¶14–23. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt 4.

The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 5. She issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted. Dkt 17. She further recommends that Plaintiff be given leave to amend as to his FDCPA claims arising under 15 USC §§1692e(10)–(11) and 1692g only. Id at 29.

The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983).

None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Report and Order of this Court.

Dkt 17.

The motion by Defendant to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 4.

The motion by Plaintiff for leave to amend his complaint is GRANTED, but only with respect to his FDCPA claims arising under 15 USC §§1692e(10)-(11) and 1692¢.

Dkt 8.

Plaintiff may, within thirty days from entry of this Order, file an amended complaint as to those FDCPA claims only.

All other claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Signed on March 18, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

UXad.

Honorable Charles Egkridge United States District Judge