Vianez v. District Court of Oklahoma et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 03/30/2015. (md)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUAN VIANEZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DISTRICT COURT OF
)
OKLAHOMA BUREAU OF
)
PRISONS (sued as OK) (F.D.C.) and )
OKLAHOMA (U.S.P./E.D.C.)
)
Case No. 13-cv-127-GKF-FHM,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-15-75-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Suzanne Mitchell. Doc. No. 4. No objection to the Report and Recommendation
has been filed,1 nor has an extension of time in which to object been sought or granted.
Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety and Plaintiff’s
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling.2
1

Plaintiff did file a “Declaration of IN FORMA PAUPERIS/ORAL HEARING (A)(2),” Doc. No. 5, but
this document does not include any specific objection to the Report and Recommendation. See United
States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[O]nly an objection that is
sufficiently specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in
dispute will advance the policies behind the Magistrate’s Act that led us to adopt a waiver rule in the first
instance. Therefore, we hold that a party’s objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for
appellate review.”).
2
Under LCvR3.1, Plaintiff was required to number each party separately in the caption of his complaint.
Because he failed to follow this rule, it is unclear how many parties Plaintiff has named as defendants. See
Doc. No. 1. Although this case was originally docketed with three defendants, (1) District Court of
Oklahoma, (2) Bureau of Prisons (sued as OK FDC), and (3) State of Oklahoma (VSP/EDC), Judge
Mitchell construed the complaint as being brought against two defendants: (1) a federal district court in
Oklahoma, and (2) the federal district court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Doc. No. 4, at 3. Even if
one construes the complaint as being brought against the three defendants shown in the Docket, the
conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are equally applicable. See Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2014.

Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1238-39 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that the Bureau of Prisons is subject to suit
only for relief other than money damages); Higganbotham v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Transp.
Comm’n, 328 F.3d 638, 644-45 (10th Cir. 2003) (applying Eleventh Amendment immunity for claims
brought against Oklahoma and its agencies); Doc. No. 1 (seeking only monetary relief).
2