Ali v. Jones et al

Filing 92

ORDER ADOPTING 82 FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 3/11/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MURTAZA ALI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUSTIN JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-14-1174-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brought the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking recompense
for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell.
Judge Purcell entered a Fourth Supplemental Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
February 1, 2016, to which Plaintiff timely objected.
The R&R under consideration addressed Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the
remaining Defendants (Jones, Haddock, Terry, Fox, Drawbridge, Brown, Denton, and
Sacket) and denied Plaintiff’s request for copies of legal materials. In the R&R, Judge
Purcell granted Plaintiff 30 days to complete service. In an Order issued after the R&R,
Judge Purcell granted Plaintiff an additional 30 days, noting that failure to properly serve
within that time period would result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s case. In his Objection,
Plaintiff does not address the service of process issue. Accordingly, that portion of the R&R
stands without objection and will be adopted.

Plaintiff does take issue with the denial of his request for the Court and the parties to
provide copies of unpublished cases. According to Plaintiff, the facility where he is currently
incarcerated does not have any federal legal materials. This portion of the R&R is reviewed
under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. Given the current posture of Plaintiff’s
case, the R&R does not run afoul of this standard. At this stage, the only issue being litigated
is proper issuance of summons and service on the remaining Defendants. Judge Purcell has
provided a detailed explanation of the steps necessary for Plaintiff to accomplish this task.
As for any future filings, the Court is confident Defendants are aware of their responsibilities
under the local rules.
For the reasons set forth more fully herein, the Court adopts, in full, the Fourth
Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 82). The
matter is again referred to Judge Purcell consistent with the original Order of Referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2016.

2