The opinion
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 2016 WL 8740494, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (Ormsby, Mag. J.)
(collecting cases), adopted, No. CR M-12-1787-1, 2017 WL 1409315 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Crane,
C.J.).
1/2
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. 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