Large v. Beckham County District Court

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendation, DISMISSING 1 Plaintiff's Complaint w/o prejudice because dft is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment & plf has failed to state a claim under 42 USC § 1983 on which relief can b e granted, DENYING 7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Johnathan C Large, DENYING 8 Motion to Submit Documents filed by Johnathan C Large. The dismissal of this case shall count as a third "prior occasion" or "strike" pursuant to 28 USC § 1915(g). Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 1/22/14. (llg)

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

JOHNATHAN C. LARGE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BECKHAM COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendant.

Case No. CIV-13-1243-F

ORDER
Before the court are the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin (doc. no. 9) and Plaintiff’s Objection (doc. no.
13) to the Report and Recommendation.
Most of plaintiff’s objection is irrelevant, but plaintiff does contend that 42
U.S.C. § 1983 waived states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. Plaintiff is simply
wrong. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 338-40 (1979) (§ 1983 does not override
a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity); Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Oklahoma
Tax Commission, 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010); Jones v. Courtney, 466
Fed.Appx. 696, 700 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2012) (Congress did not abrogate Eleventh
Amendment immunity in enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
The court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation in light of
Plaintiff’s Objection and the record herein. The court fully concurs in the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Therefore, the Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice because defendant is immune from suit pursuant to the Eleventh
Amendment and plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on which
relief can be granted. The dismissal of this case shall count as a third “prior occasion”
or “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (doc. no. 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing
him to submit documents (doc. no. 8) is also DENIED.
DATED January 22, 2014.

13-1243p001.wpd

2