The opinion
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