Rackley v. Blevins et al
Filing
14
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin and dismisses this case without prejudice...the dismissal counts as a prior occasion under 28:1915(g). Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/04/2014. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LEONARD RACKLEY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
JOHNNY BLEVINS, DOC Internal Affairs;)
JUSTIN JONES, DOC Director; TIM
)
WILKINSON, Warden (DFC); MARK
)
KNUTSON, Director’s Designee
)
)
Defendants.
)
NO. CIV-14-0145-HE
ORDER
Plaintiff Leonard Rackley, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this matter was referred for initial proceedings to
Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin. Judge Erwin has issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief
may be granted and that the dismissal constitute a “prior occasion” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation were due by May
30, 2014.
Plaintiff, having failed to object to the report and recommendation, has waived his
right to review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v. 2121 E. 30th St.,
73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #13] is ADOPTED, and the complaint
is DISMISSED without prejudice. The dismissal counts as a prior occasion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2014.
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?