Reed v. Bryant et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; mailed to Chad William Reed #584428 HELENA-JCCC 216 N Murray St Helena, OK 73741-9606. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 3/28/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHAD WILLIAM REED,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JASON BRYANT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )

Case No. CIV-16-461-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil rights action brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, consistent with the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Purcell entered a Report and Recommendation on February
6, 2017, to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo.
The facts and law are accurately set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. In his
objection, Plaintiff merely restates the conclusions and legal argument originally asserted,
and raises no issue not fully and accurately addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 4, 2016, and did not seek discovery until now,
after Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation.

Judge Purcell informed Plaintiff of the possibility of summary

judgment conversion and Rule 56 in October 2016. (Dkt. No. 29.) The proper time for

discovery requests has passed.

Accordingly, the pending discovery motions will be

stricken as moot.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint.

The proposed

amended complaint fails to cure the deficient claims based upon federal law as identified
in the Report and Recommendation. The proposed amended complaint does add two state
law claims, but the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the proposed
state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 41) is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 36) of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 28) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Rule 56(f)(2) Continuance (Dkt. No. 39), Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Discovery Requests (Dkt. No. 40), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike
(Dkt. No. 43) are stricken as MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the

Complaint (Dkt. No. 41) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2017.

2