B.F. Hicks, Gary Boren, and Kathy Boren v. Scott Andrews, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00081
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION § B.F. HICKS, GARY BOREN, and KATHY § BOREN, § § Plaintiffs, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-81-RWS-JBB v. § § SCOTT ANDREWS, et al., § § Defendants. § §

ORDER Before the Court is the October 15, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of Plaintiffs’ anticipatory nuisance claims. Docket No. 97. The Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiffs’ anticipatory nuisance claims be dismissed without prejudice as premature. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Because Plaintiffs have not objected, they are barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the standard of review 1s “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ anticipatory nuisance claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2025.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2