Hickman v. Powell Industries, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LEE ARTHUR HICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
versus
POWELL INDUSTRIES,
INC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02696
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lee Arthur Hickman proceeds here pro se. He
filed this lawsuit, asserting claims pursuant to 42 USC
§§1981 and 1981a(b)(1), for “disparate treatment” caused
by “a hostile work environment through harassment due to
racial discrimination.” Dkt 1 at 1–3. The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard
Bennett. Dkt 4.
The original complaint was dismissed without
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a plausible claim. Dkts 25 (Memorandum
and Recommendation) & 30 (order adopting M&R).
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Dkt 26. Defendant
Powell Industries, Inc, renewed its request for dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Plaintiff’s amended
complaint didn’t plausibly allege a hostile work
environment claim or any discriminatory intent. Dkt 28.
Judge Bennett issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion
to dismiss be granted because the amended complaint fails
to cure identified pleading deficiencies. Dkt 33. It further
recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02696 Document 34 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
because additional amendment would be futile. Id at 10. It
also recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery be denied. Id at 9.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 33.
The motion by Defendant Powell Industries, Inc, to
dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 28.
The motion by Plaintiff to compel discovery is DENIED.
Dkt 29.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 12, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02696 Document 34 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2