Sherrod v. Byrd et al
ORDER granting 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; ACCEPTS, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Report re 46 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 9/14/17. (kr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOE DON SHERROD,
-vsWARDEN BYRD, Cimarron
Correctional Facility, individually and
in his official capacity; et al.,
Case No. CIV-16-0780-F
This action is brought by plaintiff, a prisoner who proceeds pro se under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges eighth amendment and equal protection claims
arising out of plaintiff’s medical treatment. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell
filed a Report and Recommendation on August 9, 2017. Doc. no. 46 (the Report).
The Report recommends granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc.
Any objection to the Report was due by August 29, 2017. The Report advises
that failure to make timely objection to the Report waives the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report. No objection was
filed, nor has plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to object.
Having reviewed the Report and the record, the court concurs with the
determinations stated in the Report. Given the detailed analysis presented in the
Report, no additional analysis is necessary here except to say that although plaintiff’s
diagnoses is undoubtedly dire and the pain caused by his cancer is surely severe,
these circumstances, alone, do not amount to an actionable claim under § 1983. For
the reasons stated in the Report, defendants have shown that they are entitled to
summary judgment on the claims alleged in this action.
Therefore, upon review, and with no objection having been made to the
Report, the court ACCEPTS, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Report. Defendants’
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 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?