FORT HOOD, Texas (KXXV) — Maj. Blaine McGraw, the former Fort Hood OB-GYN facing multiple sexual assault charges, has waived his right to an Article 32 preliminary hearing for charges preferred by the Army Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) on Dec. 9, 2025, according to a statement from the OSTC.
The waiver means prosecutors will proceed without a preliminary hearing — a proceeding similar to a civilian grand jury — in which evidence would normally be reviewed to determine whether the case should go to trial.
The OSTC tells 25 News its prosecutors will continue coordinating with Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) as the investigation remains active, and that additional charges could still be filed.
McGraw remains in pretrial confinement and is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Civil Lawsuit: McGraw Moves to Dismiss
While the military case advances, McGraw is also fighting a separate civil lawsuit filed on behalf of dozens of alleged victims, referred to in court records as Jane Does.
Bell County court records show McGraw filed a 13-page, handwritten motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Jan. 30, 2026, representing himself — a legal approach known as appearing pro se.
In the motion, filed in Bell County's 146th District Court, McGraw argues the state court lacks jurisdiction over the case and that it belongs in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), since the alleged conduct occurred on federal property and was committed by a federal employee.
"Claims within this context are strictly governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act," McGraw wrote.
McGraw cited the 2014 Texas appellate case Hallbauer v. Oviedo, in which a Montgomery County court dismissed a malpractice lawsuit against a federal employee doctor. In that case, the appeals court ruled state courts lacked jurisdiction and that the proper defendant should be the United States government — not the individual federal employee.
McGraw also argues that adjudicating the case in state court would require access to federal medical records and investigative documents that state courts cannot legally compel the federal government to provide.
Mugshot Leak and Jail Contract Dispute
McGraw's motion also takes aim at the Bell County Jail, accusing it of violating its contract with the U.S. Army by releasing his mugshot and case details to news outlets within hours of his arrival.
The Army contracts with the Bell County Jail to house Fort Hood soldiers in pretrial confinement, since the installation no longer operates its own stockade. McGraw argues that arrangement comes with confidentiality requirements.
"Clearly this contract has been breached, as the photographs taken by Bell County Jail, as well as misinformed reports of the allegations and the defendant's legal status, were leaked within hours," McGraw wrote.
McGraw Accuses Attorney of Tainting Jury Pool
McGraw also used the motion to criticize Andrew Cobos, the lead attorney at the Cobos Law Firm representing many of the alleged victims, accusing him of tainting the jury pool through public media appearances — including a November press conference held at Fort Hood's Bernie Beck Gate.
McGraw took particular issue with Cobos describing the case as "the largest case of sexual assault in the history of the U.S. Army, with potentially thousands of victims."
"Mr. Cobos was not describing the criminal allegations, he was making new allegations," McGraw wrote.
Cobos pushed back firmly in an interview with 25 News.
"Dr. McGraw crafted the narrative against himself by taking photographs of women in his care improperly," Cobos said. "He is taking advantage of his rank, of his coat, of his position, of his knowledge and he's using that for sexual gratification."
Where Things Stand
Following McGraw's motion to dismiss, a motion was filed to strike his earlier request for a default judgment. It remains unclear how — or whether — the judge has ruled on that motion.
McGraw currently has no active attorney on record in the civil case and is representing himself.
Meanwhile, Laurie Higginbotham, with the National Trial Law Firm — which has filed a separate lawsuit directly against the U.S. Army — confirmed that McGraw's motion to dismiss in the civil case does not affect the case against the Army.
The Cobos Law Firm, Carlson Law Firm, and Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, which collectively represent the alleged victims, had not yet responded to requests for comment at the time of publication.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
