Brandon D. Hicks v. Texas Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division, Amanda Estrada, John Doe 1-10, Unknown Employee / Agent of the Office of the Attorney General; and Jane Doe 1-5, Unknown Supervisors of the Office of the Attorney General

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

BRANDON D. HICKS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. 1:25-CV-02164-ADA-DH § TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY § GENERAL CHILD SUPPORT § DIVISION, AMANDA ESTRADA, § JOHN DOE 1-10, UNKNOWN § EMPLOYEE / AGENT OF THE § OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY § GENERAL; AND JANE DOE 1-5, § UNKNOWN SUPERVISORS OF THE § OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell. ECF No. 8. The report recommends that this Court DISMISS Hicks’s cause of action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and DISMISS AS MOOT Hicks’s remaining pending motions, ECF Nos. 3; 4; 7. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). The district court may decline a party’s request to hear new evidence not before the Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff filed objections on March 2, 2026. ECF No. 12. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff's complaint, the applicable laws, and Plaintiff's objections. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED 04/01/2026. (oe OQ\oc ALAN D ATBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE