Kerchee et al v. Smith et al
Filing
200
ORDER ADOPTING #188 , #189 , #193 and #195 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 2/1/12. (lg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MELVIN KERCHEE, JR., and
DEBORAH SEQUICHIE-KERCHEE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JUDGE MARK SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV-11-459-C
ORDER
On January 11 and January 13, 2012, Magistrate Judge Robert E. Bacharach issued
four Reports and Recommendations (“R&R”) recommending:
That the Motion to Dismiss filed by Scott Adams and the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Emmit Tayloe be granted (Dkt. 188);
That the Motion for Sanctions filed by Scott Adams be denied (Dkt. No. 189);
That Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions be denied (Dkt. No. 193);
That the motion to dismiss filed by Michael Gassaway should be granted (Dkt. No.
195).
Plaintiff has timely responded, in objection, to at least two of these R&Rs* and the
court therefore treats all matters de novo. As in his previous objections, Plaintiff merely
*
Plaintiff’s Dkt. No. 197 is entitled “Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant Scott Adams
Counsel, Mr. Carl Hughes “Response” to Plaintiff’s Part IV Rebuttal (“Plaintiff’s Motions for
Sanctions Against Defendant Adams”). Filed 01/11/12 Doc #187.” The Court will treat this
pleading as an objection to the Report and Recommendation as it was filed one week after the
R&R and no other objection has been filed. No objection has been filed as to Defendant’s
Motion for Sanctions although the time to do so has expired.
restates and reargues those matters which were fully considered by Judge Bacharach. Judge
Bacharach’s R&Rs treat each and every issue raised by Plaintiff and dispose of them
accurately. Indeed, Judge Bacharach’s patience in dealing with Plaintiff’s sometimes
illegible, always repetitive, arguments is admirable. There is nothing the undersigned can
add to the explanations, and certainly Plaintiff has asserted nothing in his endless objections
that would suggest or permit a different result.
Accordingly, the Court adopts each of the R&Rs and therefore Defendant Scott
Adams’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Dkt. No. 118) is granted with prejudice
and Defendant Tayloe’s Opening Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 81) is granted;
Defendant Scott Adams’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is denied; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions Against Defendant Adams Counsel, Mr. Carl Hughes, Esq. (Dkt. No. 182) is
denied; the Motion to Dismiss filed by Michael Gassaway (Dkt. No. 139) is granted without
prejudice as to the breach of contract claim, in all other respects the dismissal is with
prejudice. A judgment will enter accordingly. All pending motions are denied as moot.
With these dispositions, no claim or defendants remain, and the case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2012.
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?