Hicks v. Collier, 2:24-cv-00126

Sean Hicks, an inmate, filed suit alleging Eighth Amendment violations related to heat conditions of confinement and denial of adequate medical care at a Texas correctional facility.
Hicks brought additional claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act (RA), and unidentified international treaties.
The Magistrate Judge recommended retaining certain individual and official capacity Eighth Amendment claims related to the lack of heat mitigation and denial of respite, while dismissing all other claims.
Hicks objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, raising issues regarding clarifications of facts, keeping or dismissing parties (such as specific wardens), ADA/RA claims, policymaker responsibility, and alleged violations by lawmakers and UTMB employees.
The District Judge conducted a de novo review of the objected portions and a clear error review for the remaining recommendations.
The Court overruled Hicks's objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings, retained select Eighth Amendment claims, dismissed all others, denied leave to amend, and denied a temporary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal of ADA/RA claims	Hicks: Lack of adequate medical care violates ADA/RA	Collier: Medical care complaints not actionable under ADA/RA	Claims dismissed – not actionable under ADA/RA
Claims vs. Wardens Samiago/Tovar (heat policy)	Hicks: Wardens have decision-making authority/policy power	Collier: Wardens lack necessary policymaking authority	Claims dismissed – no policymaking authority alleged
Denial of respite/cool showers (individuals)	Hicks: Specific officers/sergeants denied him respite/care	Collier: No policymaking or specific medical denial pled	Retained certain Eighth Amendment claims; others dismissed
Lawmakers’/UTMB staff responsibility	Hicks: Lawmakers/UTMB staff liable for violations	Collier: No facts about enforcement or policy involvement	Claims dismissed – insufficient factual allegations
Understaffing and international treaty claims	Hicks: Understaffing is acknowledged by unit; treaties invoked	Collier: No policy from Collier; treaty/private right lacking	Claims dismissed – insufficient policy/treaty basis

Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1993) (Objections that are mere re-arguments are not proper and will not be considered)
Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court)
Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1987) (Section 1983 does not allow for vicarious liability)
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989) (Standard for district court review of magistrate judge recommendations)