Greer v. Dowling et al

Filing 191

ORDER ADOPTING 173 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, striking 170 plaintiff's surreply opposing defendant's motion for summary judgment, granting 142 defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's federal constitutional claims, with the exception of plaintiff's request for retrospective declaratory relief, dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's request for retrospective declaratory relief, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claim, and denying 163 and 164 plaintiff's Third and Fourth Motions for Injunctive Relief (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/14/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TRAVIS LEMARR GREER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JANET DOWLING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-708-M

ORDER
On June 22, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin issued a Report and
Recommendation in this federal civil rights action, alleging violations of the United States
Constitution and Oklahoma state law. The Magistrate Judge recommended: (1) that defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in its entirety as to plaintiff’s federal constitutional
claims, with the exception of plaintiff’s request for retrospective declaratory relief, which should
be dismissed without prejudice; (2) that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over plaintiff’s state-law claim; (3) that plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Motions for Injunctive Relief
be denied; and (4) that plaintiff’s unauthorized surreply opposing defendant’s motion for summary
judgment should be stricken. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by July 13, 2017. Although plaintiff received a number of extensions of time,
plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation by the extended deadline.1
Having carefully reviewed this matter de novo, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation [docket
no. 173] issued by the Magistrate Judge on June 22, 2017;

On February 27, 2018, plaintiff filed a Judicial Notice. The Judicial Notice, however, does not
address the merits of the Report and Recommendation.

1

(2)

STRIKES plaintiff’s surreply opposing defendant’s motion for summary
judgment [docket no. 170];

(3)

GRANTS defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [docket no. 142] as to
plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, with the exception of plaintiff’s request
for retrospective declaratory relief;

(4)

DISMISSES without prejudice plaintiff’s request for retrospective declaratory
relief;

(5)

DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claim;
and

(6)

DENIES plaintiff’s Third and Fourth Motions for Injunctive Relief [docket nos.
163 and 164).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2018.