Pope v. Carns et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Documents #76 and #79 are each Denied. This action remains referred to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 3/11/09. (cjs, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LLOYD NEIL POPE, Plaintiff, vs. EDWIN CARNS, M.D., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-07-1331-F ORDER The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo is before the court. (Doc. no. 85.) This action is brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Plaintiff is a prisoner appearing pro se, and his pleadings are liberally construed. The Report recommends that plaintiff's "Motion for Order Granting Relief as Written Against Lindsay Municipal Hospital w/Brief in Support" (doc. no. 76), and plaintiff's "Motion to Show that the Paperwork for Service on Dr. Steven Magness was Sent w/Brief in Support and Attachments" (doc. no. 79), each be denied. The Report states that any objection to the Report must be filed by February 25, 2009. The Report states that failure to make timely objection to the Report waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained in the Report. No objection to the Report has been filed, and no extension of time within which to object has been requested. After review, with no objection having been filed, and having concluded that no further analysis is necessary here, Magistrate Judge Argo's Report and Recommendation of February 5, 2009, is hereby ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an order granting relief as written against Lindsay Hospital (doc. no. 76) and plaintiff's motion to show that the paperwork for service on Dr. Steven Magness was sent (doc. no. 79) are each DENIED. This action remains referred to the Magistrate Judge. Dated this 11th day of March, 2009. 07-1331p007.wpd -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?