Yost v. Stouffer et al

Filing 82

ORDER ADOPTING 80 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 68 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Shirley Stouffer; DENYING 59 Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Justin Yost; DENYING 74 Motion for Extension of Time filed by Justin Yost. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 9/28/2017. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUSTIN YOST,
Plaintiff,
-vsSHIRLEY STOUFFER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-0783-F

ORDER
Plaintiff Justin Yost, a state prisoner appearing pro se whose pleadings are
liberally construed, brings this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin issued a Report and Recommendation (doc.
no. 80, the Report), recommending that the court grant defendant Shirley Stouffer’s
motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 68, seeking judgment on the sole remaining
legal claim in this action). The Report also recommends that the court deny
plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of
time. Doc. nos. 59, 74.
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report which was received by the court
on September 5, 2017. Doc. no. 81. The objection states that the Report is
“completely one sided” and that plaintiff seeks to amend “the judgment of the court,”
citing Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., although the Report does not constitute a final
judgment. The objection also states that plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment
requiring defendants to comply with all orders from the court, and that plaintiff seeks
nominal damages because his constitutional rights have been violated. The court
liberally construes doc. no. 81 as a broad objection to the conclusions and
recommendations of the magistrate judge.

After providing a detailed analysis of the magistrate judge’s reasoning, the
Report concludes that defendant’s affirmative defense of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies is established as a matter of law. As a result, the magistrate
judge recommends entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Stouffer on
plaintiff’s sole, remaining legal claim. The Report also explains, in detail, the
magistrate judge’s reasons for recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motion
for injunctive relief, as well as plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. After de
novo review, the court finds and concludes that it agrees with the recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge and that no purpose would be served by setting out any
additional analysis here.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Goodwin is DENIED (doc. no. 81), and the Report and
Recommendation (doc. no. 80) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. As
recommended in the Report, defendant Shirley Stouffer’s motion for summary
judgment (doc. no. 68) is GRANTED; plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (doc.
no. 59) is DENIED; and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (doc. no. 74) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2017.

15-0783p001.docx

2