Darnell v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING 70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting in part and denying in part 38 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and recommiting this action to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 7/24/2013. (njr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RONNY DARNELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-1065-M

ORDER
On June 20, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell issued a Report and
Recommendation in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The Magistrate Judge
recommended (1) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief
against defendants in their individual capacities and (2) dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action in the
absence of a remaining viable claim. Plaintiff was advised of plaintiff’s right to object to the Report
and Recommendation by July 10, 2013.
On July 1, 2013, plaintiff filed plaintiff’s Response to Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation and plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings. Plaintiff moves to amend plaintiff’s
complaint as to make a “final d[e]signation of how [plaintiff] is going to sue the Defendants in this
instant cause of action . . . .” Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Pleadings [docket no 72] at 2; see also
Plaintiff’s Response to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [docket no. 71] at 2. Plaintiff
appears to be seeking leave to amend as to allege claims against defendants in both their individual

1

Plaintiff asserts that plaintiff is a male-to-female transgender with gender identity
disorder. Based upon publically available records from the Department of Corrections, the Report
and Recommendation uses male pronouns; whereas, plaintiff uses female pronouns in plaintiff’s
filings. For clarity purposes, and as not to disrespect plaintiff, the Court will use neither male nor
female pronouns when referencing plaintiff.

capacities and official capacities. Therefore, if plaintiff were granted leave to amend, there will be
remaining claims against defendants in their official capacity and claims against defendants for
monetary damages in their individual capacity.
Having carefully reviewed this matter de novo, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on June
20, 2013;

(2)

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [docket
no. 38]. Specifically, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief
against defendants in their individual capacities; and

(3)

RECOMMITS this action to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2013.

2