Rylander v. Frazier et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Yucob Rylander,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil No. 4:25-cv-5323
Mary Elizondo Frazier, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before this Court is a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge
Yvonne Ho, recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve
Defendants. Doc. 30. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation as its Memorandum and Order and hereby DISMISSES the case
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff filed this suit pro se as a RICO action, claiming that Defendants created or
proffered false judicial records and used those records against him. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed
his Complaint on October 22, 2025, but, since then, has failed to serve a single defendant.
Law firm defendant Brent Coon & Associates moved to dismiss the claims against it with
prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b). Doc. 20. The Court
referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ho, who issued the pending Report and
Recommendation. Doc. 30. Magistrate Judge Ho recommended that Defendant Brent
Coon’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice be granted in part (with respect to dismissal) and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05323 Document 34 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
denied in part (with respect to prejudice). Id. at 10. She also recommended that the Court
dismiss all remaining claims sua sponte. Id.
Plaintiff objected, arguing (1) that he should not be penalized for lack of service due
to his in forma pauperis status, (2) that the Court should not have considered Defendant
Brent Coon’s Motion to Dismiss, (3) that the Court’s Rule 4(m) notice to him was
inadequate to warn him of the impending dismissal, (4) that he should be granted leave to
amend his Complaint, and (5) that he should be granted a fee waiver for his use of PACER.
Doc. 31.
When a party objects to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition, the district court
reviews it de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The district court may
accept any other portions to which there is no objection if satisfied that no clear error
appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v. PPG Indus. Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308
(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). The
District Court need not consider general, frivolous, or conclusory objections to a Report
and Recommendation. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the record, the applicable law, and the
objections. The Court has also reviewed de novo the recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge to which Plaintiff objected. The Court finds that the objections lack merit and
OVERRULES them. No clear error otherwise appears in the Report and Recommendation.
Case 4:25-cv-05323 Document 34 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby adopted as the
Memorandum and Order of this Court. Doc. 30. Defendant Brent Coon’s Motion to
Dismiss with Prejudice is GRANTED IN PART; Plaintiff’s claims against Brent Coon are
DISMISSED WITHOJUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against all other defendants are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE sua sponte. All other pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on the 8th of June, 2026.
__________________________
Nicholas J. Ganjei
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05323 Document 34 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3