Robertson v. Jay et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting 29 Motion to Dismiss; granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 31 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/28/15. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VANESSA LYNN ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF SCOTT JAY; and
CAPTAIN DIANA BILBO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-172-D

ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brought the present action, alleging Defendants
violated her constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Defendants filed the court-ordered
Special Report and a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
No. 29]. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 17, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed
her Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 31] in which she recommended the Court
grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Id. at 9.
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties
of the right to file objections to the same and directed the parties to file any objections
no later than December 7, 2015. Id. The Magistrate Judge further admonished the

parties that failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation.
Id. at 9-10. The deadline for filing objections has expired and to date, neither party
has filed objections or sought an extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 31] is ADOPTED as though fully set forth
herein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, as more fully set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
A judgment shall be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2015.

2