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)

Download PDF
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

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?