Watkins v. Donnelly

Filing 120

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Default Judgment; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 54 Report and Recommendation.; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 56 Report and Recommendation.; MOOT 103 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; M OOT 106 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; MOOT 107 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; MOOT 112 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis ; DENYING 83 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 70 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 101 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 109 Objections. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron 7/11/11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ERIC WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
DONNELLY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-09-1381-C

ORDER
A number of objections and requests in this case have been filed. The Court has taken
no action for a period of months due to the pending interlocutory appeals. The Tenth Circuit
has dismissed the appeals as premature, and the Court rules on the following matters at issue:
1.

Reports and Recommendations filed March 9 and March 14 (Dkt Nos. 54 &

56), have not been objected to and are therefore adopted. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment against seven unidentified staff members and against Defendant Donald Reich are
therefore denied.
2.

Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 83) to the Order (Dkt. No. 70) vacating the

entry of default against Defendant Donnelly are, for reasons explained in earlier Orders,
without merit. The objections are overruled.

3.

Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 101) to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is mooted by the Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of his appeal and the
objection is overruled.
4.

Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt Nos. 103, 107 & 112)

appear to relate to the appeal pending at that time and they are now moot.
5.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 106) is mooted by the filing

of his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on May 23, 2011, which will be considered
to be timely.
6.

In a Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 108), Plaintiff seeks to have his response to

Defendant Donnelly’s Motion to Dismiss stayed pending the Court’s ruling on various other
motions. The stay has, in effect, been granted by the Court’s delayed ruling. Plaintiff shall
have until August 1, 2011, within which to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.
7.

In his objections (Dkt. No. 109) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order permitting

Defendant Donnelly to answer out of time, Plaintiff argues no circumstances of fact or law
which support the relief he seeks. His objections are therefore overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2011.

2