Hawkins v. I.C. System, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KENNETH HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,
versus
I.C. SYSTEM, INC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02194
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kenneth Hawkins proceeds here pro se. He
filed a complaint against Defendant I.C. System, Inc,
regarding debt collection practices of Defendant. See Dkt 3
(first amended complaint). Plaintiff asserts several causes
of action in that regard, including violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
willful negligence, and liability of surety principal. See id
at ¶¶14–23. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under
Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt 4.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 5. She issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending that the motion to
dismiss be granted. Dkt 17. She further recommends that
Plaintiff be given leave to amend as to his FDCPA claims
arising under 15 USC §§1692e(10)–(11) and 1692g only. Id
at 29.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02194 Document 18 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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
Report and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Report and Order of this Court.
Dkt 17.
The motion by Defendant to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 4.
The motion by Plaintiff for leave to amend his
complaint is GRANTED, but only with respect to his FDCPA
claims arising under 15 USC §§1692e(10)–(11) and 1692g.
Dkt 8.
Plaintiff may, within thirty days from entry of this
Order, file an amended complaint as to those FDCPA
claims only.
All other claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 18, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02194 Document 18 Filed 03/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2