Tuell v. Kingfisher County of et al
ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation.. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/22/16. (ml)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CLIFTON DWAIN TUELL,
KINGFISHER COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. CIV-16-86-D
Plaintiff Clifton Dwain Tuell, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis,
brought this action seeking damages against three Oklahoma counties for requiring Plaintiff
to register as a sex offender after the expiration of his ten-year registration period. The
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin for initial
proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1)(B) and (C). On November 30, 2016,
the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended
dismissal of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). See R.
& R. [Doc. No. 17] at 1.
In his Objection filed on December 16, 2016 [Doc. No. 18], Plaintiff presents no
persuasive argument or authority that would cause this Court to reject the magistrate judge’s
conclusions. Indeed, it is difficult to discern precisely what Plaintiff contends the magistrate
judge got wrong.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the entirety of the Report and
Plaintiff does attempt to cure the defects in his Complaint by naming Detective Albright of
Garfield County as one of the people requiring Plaintiff to register as a sex-offender after the expiration of
his ten-year registration period. See Obj. [Doc. No. 18] at 2. However, this material was not previously
presented in the pleadings, and cannot be considered now. See Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 142627 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding “issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s
Recommendation, as well as the case record, and fully concurs in the Report and
Therefore, the Court, having conducted a de novo review,2 finds that Plaintiff’s
Objection is overruled, and hererby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
17] in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
to filing a proper form of action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2016.
recommendation are deemed waived.”); see also ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Biamp Sys., 653 F.3d 1163,
1184-85 (10th Cir. 2011); Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1310 (10th Cir. 2010).
Pursuant to Rule 72, where the district court refers dispositive matters to a magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation, the district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 812
F.3d 1238, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015).
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?