1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

LARRY COLEMAN HICKS §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv325

K. NICOLE MITCHELL §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Larry Hicks filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining 

of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order 

for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. 

The sole named Defendant is United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, and the sole 

requested relief is “put the magistrate in jail.”

Plaintiff has a long history of filing frivolous and maliciouslawsuits making vile and untrue 

accusations against various public officials, and the present case represents a continuation of this 

practice. On January 14, 2020, this Court entered an order reading as follows:

Plaintiff Larry Coleman Hicksis hereby SANCTIONED. The Clerk of Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas shall not accept from Plaintiff Larry Coleman Hicks any 

further lawsuits, documents, pleadings, correspondence, letters, notices, or motions 

in any suit, including previous and newly filed cases—that do not bear the signature 

of a licensed attorney admitted to practice before the Bar of the Eastern District of 

Texas. Any other lawsuits, documents, pleadings, letters, correspondence, notices, 

or motions—not bearing a signature from a licensed attorney—shall not be filed on 

any docket but may be returned unfiled or discarded at the sole discretion of the 

Clerk.

Hicks v. Skeen, civil action no. 6:18cv400 (E.D.Tex.)

The above-styled civil action does not bear the signature of a licensed attorney. 

Consequently, the complaintshould be stricken and the lawsuitshould be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 6:23-cv-00325-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
2

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled civil action be dismissed with prejudice 

as frivolous and as improperly filed.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendations shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00325-JCB-JDL Document 3 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9