Eastham v. Jones et al

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; 21 Motion to Dismiss filed by Justin Jones is GRANTED; 48 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; matter remains under referral to Magistrate Judge for consideration of issues re other dfts. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 4/30/13. (ap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHESTER RAY EASTHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUSTIN JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-12-769-D

ORDER
Plaintiff, who appears pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983. He alleges
that his constitutional rights were violated by the defendants during his confinement at the Lawton
Correctional Facility, a private prison. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings.
Defendant Justin Jones filed a motion [Doc. No. 21], seeking dismissal of all claims asserted
against him in his official and individual capacities. In his response, Plaintiff acknowledged that
claims asserted against Defendant Jones in his official capacity should be dismissed on grounds of
immunity. On March 28, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 48] in which she recommended the dismissal of the claims against Defendant Jones in both his
official and individual capacities.
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Mitchell advised the parties of their right to file
objections to the same, and she set an April 18, 2013 deadline for filing such objections. She also
expressly cautioned the parties that a failure to timely file objections would result in a waiver of the
right to appellate review of the matters determined in the Report and Recommendation.
The deadline for filing objections has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation or sought an extension of time in which to do so. Therefore, the

Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 48] addressing Defendant Jones’s motion to dismiss is
ADOPTED as though fully set forth herein. The motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 21] all claims against
Defendant Jones is GRANTED, and the claims asserted against him are dismissed without prejudice.
This matter remains under referral to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of the issues regarding
Plaintiff’s claims against the other defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2013.

2