Randy G. Algoe v. Patrick McNulty, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 12, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

RANDY G. ALGOE, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-245 § PATRICK MCNULTY, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER

Plaintiff Randy G. Algoe seeks relief against Defendants Patrick McNulty, Does 1–50, and the City of South Padre Island. He invokes the Court’s jurisdiction in “its equitable and fiduciary capacity,” (First Am. Compl., Doc. 8, 1), but seeks relief because the Defendants allegedly retaliated against him for his public speech. McNulty and the City move to dismiss Algoe’s causes of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Motion, Doc. 44) Algoe did not file a Response. A United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61), recommending that the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Algoe timely objected to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs., Doc. 68) Normally, when a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, a court affords de novo review to the objected-to issues. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). But “when a party fails to present an argument to the magistrate judge, receives an adverse recommendation from the magistrate judge on the issue, and then seeks to raise an argument for the first time through an objection, the argument is forfeited altogether from further consideration, even on appeal.” Jones v. City of Dallas, Tex., No. 24-10803, 2025 WL 2491127, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025) (per 1 / 2 curiam) (unpubl.) (citing Shambaugh & Son, L.P. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.,91F.4th 364, 369 (5th Cir. 2024)). Thus, by not presenting his arguments in a Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Algoe has forfeited them from further consideration. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error within it.? As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61). It is: ORDERED that Defendants Patrick McNulty and the City of South Padre Island’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (Doc. 44) is GRANTED; ORDERED that Plaintiff Randy G. Algoe’s causes of action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and ORDERED that Plaintiff Randy G. Algoe’s Verified Emergency Motion to Stay All Merits Deadlines Pending Resolution of Threshold Procedural, Service, Authority, and Impartiality Defects (Doc. 54) is DENIED AS MOOT. This is a final and appealable order. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed on August 12, 2026. co— Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

1 Even if it applied de novo review based on Algoe’s objections, the Court would overrule the objections and adopt the Report and Recommendation. 2/2