Hickman v. Mid-West Electric Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LEE ARTHUR HICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
versus
MID-WEST ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03705
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lee Arthur Hickman proceeds here pro se. In
his amended complaint, he sues Defendant Mid-West
Electric Company for racial discrimination under 42 USC
§1981. Dkt 27 at 2–3. Construed liberally, the amended
complaint also appears to bring a claim under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by reference to the original
complaint. See id at 6 (citing Dkt 1). The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard W.
Bennett. Dkt 6.
Pending is a motion by Defendant to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Dkt 30. Also pending is a motion by
Plaintiff to compel discovery. Dkt 31. Judge Bennett
entered a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted, the
§1981 claim be dismissed with prejudice, the Title VII
claim be dismissed without prejudice, and the motion to
compel discovery be denied as moot. Dkt 33 at 11.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 13, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03705 Document 35 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error 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 Mid-West Electric Company
to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 30.
The claim by Plaintiff Lee Arthur Hickman under
42 USC §1981 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The claim by Plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The motion by Plaintiff to compel discovery is DENIED
AS MOOT. Dkt 31.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 12, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03705 Document 35 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2