UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

RYAN BOLAND,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:24-cv-00834-P

ANDREW VOGEL, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 17. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Ryan Boland objected to the FCR. ECF No. 18. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. To be cognizable, an objection must point out with particularity an error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Failing that, it does not constitute a proper objection and will not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber,

(5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins,

, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not made a cognizable objection to the FCR. In response to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Defendants enjoy absolute immunity from suit, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are acting in the interest of the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (“Risk Pool”), not the State of Texas. ECF No. 18 at 2. Plaintiff alludes to Defendants’ Certificate of Interested Persons (ECF No. 3), which names the Risk Pool as a potentially financially interested entity. The Certificate does not, as Plaintiff argues, state that Defendants are acting on the Risk Pool’s behalf. Beyond that misunderstanding, Plaintiff makes no objection to any part of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. The District Judge therefore reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are hereby accepted as the findings and conclusions of the Court. The Court therefore ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice. SO ORDERED on this 2nd day of December 2024.

Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE