Alexander v. Whetsel et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 50 of Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones and dismisses plaintiff's claims against defendant Collins without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/17/2016. (cla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NATHAN DEAN ALEXANDER,
JOHN WHETSEL, Oklahoma County
Sheriff, et al.,
Plaintiff Nathan Dean Alexander, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action asserting claims under §1983 against multiple defendants. Consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred for initial proceedings to Magistrate Judge
Bernard M. Jones. The court previously adopted his recommendations that plaintiff’s claims
against all defendants, except for defendant Bryan Collins who had not been served with
process, be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
magistrate judge now recommends that the court dismiss plaintiff’s claims against defendant
Collins without prejudice for failure to effect service within the 120 days then allowed under
Plaintiff did not object to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. He
thereby waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed.1
The court notes that, in considering whether a second permissive extension of
time to effect service should be granted, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff’s
action against Mr. Collins would not be barred if it were refiled. Report and
Recommendation, Doc. #50, p. 3.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jones’s Report and
Recommendation and dismisses plaintiff’s claims against defendant Collins without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of October, 2016.
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?