Davison v. Rios et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 129 of Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell...the court denies plaintiff's motion for declaratory and injunctive relief 122 ; as the magistrate judge noted, the Report did not terminate the referral. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 11/20/2017. (cla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALONZO G. DAVISON,
HECTOR RIOS, JR., Warden,
Lawson Correctional Facility (LCF), et al.,
Plaintiff Alonzo G. Davison filed this § 1983 action against Lawton Correctional
Facility (“LCF”), a privately owned and operated prison under contract with the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections (“ODOC”), Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”), the third-party
medical care provider for LCF and other persons/entities associated with ODOC or LCF.
Plaintiff claimed defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights and also alleges
they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were granted in substantial
part. See Doc. Nos. 87; 88. GEO, Inc., the corporate owner of LCF, and CCS are the only
remaining defendants. Plaintiff’s remaining claim is based on defendants’ alleged delay
of his gallbladder surgery while he was housed at LCF. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), (C), the matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for
Plaintiff, who currently is housed at the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’
North Fork Correctional Center (“NFCC”), filed a motion seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief against NFCC, NFCC Warden Jimmy Martin, NFCC Chief of Security
Steve Young, all “NFCC prison officials/employees, ODOC employees, employees of
GEO and CCS who work at any prison in Oklahoma, including NFCC, and all those under
control of Warden Jimmy Martin and Steve Young.” Doc. #122, at pp. 1, 3. Plaintiff
requests that his attorney have access to his current and future clients at NFCC and other
ODOC facilities. In her Report and Recommendation (“Report”), the magistrate judge
concluded plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be denied for various reasons
including mootness, lack of notice, and the lack of allegations that nonparties acted in
concert with the remaining parties in this action, GEO and CCS. She also determined
plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the requested injunctive relief has no
relationship to plaintiff’s underlying claims.
Plaintiff responded to the Report stating, he “does not object to the factual or legal
findings of the Magistrate Judge’s R & R.” Doc. #133, p. 3. Accordingly, the court adopts
the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mitchell and denies plaintiff’s
motion for declaratory and injunctive relief [Doc. #122]. As the magistrate judge noted,
the Report did not terminate the referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2017.
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?