Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al.

S.D. Texas

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al.

DecidedApril 28, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00075

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al. (Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al., (S.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 28, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH ALEXANDER, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-075 § DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Alexander filed a Complaint for a Civil Case (Doc. 1) against Defendants Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio Jimenez. Alexander pled that “Defendants conspired together and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in violation of due process,” but did not allege any facts or indicate how the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the case. (Id.) On April 10, 2026, a United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Alexander’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 (R&R, Doc. 13) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the deadline for doing so expired on April 24. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error within it. As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13). It is:

1 The same day, the Clerk's Office mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Alexander at the return address that he included in his Complaint. (See Doc. No. 14) The document was returned as undeliverable. (See Return, Doc. 16) Mailing of documents to the address that a litigant provides satisfies the notice requirement for a Report and Recommendation. See Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpubl.) (noting that when the clerk's office mails a report and recommendation to the plaintiff's last known address and it is returned as undeliverable, the plaintiff “is solely responsible for not receiving” the mailing). 1 / 2 ORDERED that Plaintiff Joseph Alexander’s Complaint for a Civil Case (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed on April 28, 2026.

□ Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2/2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 28, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

JOSEPH ALEXANDER, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-075 § DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Alexander filed a Complaint for a Civil Case (Doc. 1) against Defendants Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio Jimenez. Alexander pled that “Defendants conspired together and intentionally delayed the calendar of motions, in violation of due process,” but did not allege any facts or indicate how the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the case. (Id.) On April 10, 2026, a United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Alexander’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.1 (R&R, Doc. 13) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the deadline for doing so expired on April 24. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error within it. As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13). It is:

1 The same day, the Clerk's Office mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Alexander at the return address that he included in his Complaint. (See Doc. No. 14) The document was returned as undeliverable. (See Return, Doc. 16) Mailing of documents to the address that a litigant provides satisfies the notice requirement for a Report and Recommendation. See Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App’x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpubl.) (noting that when the clerk's office mails a report and recommendation to the plaintiff's last known address and it is returned as undeliverable, the plaintiff “is solely responsible for not receiving” the mailing). 1 / 2 ORDERED that Plaintiff Joseph Alexander’s Complaint for a Civil Case (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed on April 28, 2026.

□ Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph Alexander v. Dawn Hill-Kearse, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-alexander-v-dawn-hill-kearse-et-al-txsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack