Mark Hilal v. Enrique D. Mendoza, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION MARK HILAL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-25-CV-444-KC § ENRIQUE D. MENDOZA, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On this day, the Court considered the case. On October 3, 2025, the Court referred Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) to United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Oct. 3, 2025, Text Order. On December 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 4, granting Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, but recommending that Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, and that Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims be dismissed without prejudice.

Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 The Clerk of Court mailed the R&R to Plaintiff on December 17, 2025, via certified mail. Dec. 17, 2025, Cert. Mailing, ECF No. 6. The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) attempted delivery, but because Plaintiff was not there to sign for it, USPS left notice. USPS then sent a reminder to Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”).

Plaintiff that he must arrange for redelivery of the item, or it would be returned.2 Plaintiff did not claim the mailing and USPS returned it. Cert. Mailing Returned, ECF No. 10. Cognizant of the mailing issues, the Court determined it was unclear whether Plaintiff was ever served with the R&R, and thus whether the fourteen-day objection period had begun. See Jan. 9, 2026, Order, ECF No. 8. The Court instructed the Clerk to again send the R&R to Plaintiff, this time via certified and regular mail. Id. at 2. The Clerk mailed the R&R and the January 9 Order that same day. Jan. 9, 2026, Cert. Mailing, ECF No. 9. Again, USPS has attempted delivery, left notice, and sent a reminder to Plaintiff to arrange for re-delivery.3 Because it is Plaintiff’s obligation to check his mail and stay apprised of developments in his case, the Court assumes that Plaintiff received the R&R via regular mail.4 Seventeen days have elapsed since the R&R was sent to Plaintiff in that manner, and he has not filed objections.

When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id. at 1221.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 4, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED See USPS Tracking, https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction_input?origTrackNum=9589071052700628132104.

3 See USPS Tracking, https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction_input?origTrackNum=9589071052700628137291 Moreover, the R&R has been publicly available on PACER since it was entered on December 16, 2025. without prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to pursue them in state court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because Plaintiffs federal claims have been dismissed with prejudice, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7, is DENIED as MOOT.

The Clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2026.

a i : 7 Pa