Martin v. Presley et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 12 Report and Recommendation, plaintiff may file an amended complaint by May 18, 2009. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 4/28/09. (jw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA NATHAN B. MARTIN, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICIA PRESLEY, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Plaintiff Nathan B. Martin, appearing pro se, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Judge Purcell has recommended that the complaint be dismissed upon filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The parties, by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation have waived their right to appellate review of the suggested dismissal. United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 P.3d 1057, 1059-60 (10th Cir. 1996). After de novo review, the court concurs with the Magistrate Judge that the complaint fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #12] and DISMISSES the complaint. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint which addresses the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation by May 18, 2009. Absent such a filing, this case will be subject to dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 28th day of April, 2009.
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?