Rylander v. Frazier et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
YUCOB RYLANDER,
Plaintiff,
versus
MARY ELIZONDO FRAZIER
and BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02081
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Yucob Rylander proceeds here pro se. He
brings claims under 42 USC §1983, 42 USC §1985(3), the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, as well as state law claims. Dkt 1 at 18–20. Defendants
Mary Elizondo Frazier and Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP filed a motion to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) and, in the
alternative, for more definite statement under Rule 12(e).
Dkt 7.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Peter Bray. Dkt 6. He issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion
to dismiss be granted. Dkt 39 at 11. He specifically
recommended dismissal with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s civil
federal claims and dismissal without prejudice as to
Plaintiff’s criminal and state law claims. Ibid.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02081 Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
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).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 40. He claims, among
other things, that the Magistrate Judge committed legal
error by dismissing his claims under Rule 12(b)(6) after
preliminarily finding he had standing because, he asserts,
“Claims cannot lawfully fail where standing exists.” Id at
10. He also generally claims that his complaint plausibly
states claims for the relief sought and that the Magistrate
Judge misapplied governing law. See id at 9–40. He also
contends that the Magistrate Judge lacked authority to
adjudicate this dispute without his consent. See id at 14.
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. The preliminary determination that
Plaintiff possessed standing for his civil claims is not a
finding that Plaintiff’s allegations stated plausible claims.
And in that latter respect, conclusory allegations are not
entitled to the presumption of truth. See Ashcroft v Iqbal,
556 US 662, 678 (2009). The Magistrate Judge correctly
found that Plaintiff’s allegations were either conclusory or
failed to state plausible claims for his federal causes of
action. See Dkt 39 at 6–8. He also correctly noted that
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking over the remaining
claims and supplemental jurisdiction shouldn’t be
exercised over them. Dkt 39 at 8–9. Finally, Plaintiff is
incorrect that his consent was required for the Magistrate
Judge to issue the Memorandum and Recommendation.
See 28 USC §636(b)(1).
The objections fail to otherwise demonstrate legal error
on the part of the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 40.
Case 4:25-cv-02081 Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
No clear error otherwise 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 39.
The motion by Defendants Mary Elizondo Frazier and
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP to dismiss is
GRANTED. Dkt 7.
The civil claims by Plaintiff Yucob Rylander under
federal law are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The claims by Plaintiff Yucob Rylander purported to be
stated under criminal and state law are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Id at 19–20.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 22, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02081 Document 43 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3