Anderson v. Falsted et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 of Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin; dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's claims in Count II against the John and Jane Doe defendants; this order does not terminate the referral to the magistrate judge. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/6/2017. (cla)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHARLES B. ANDERSON JR., Plaintiff, vs. LIEUTENANT FALSTED, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CIV-16-1060-HE ORDER Plaintiff Charles B. Anderson Jr., a federal prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Bivens 1 action against eleven employees at the Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, where he previously was incarcerated. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. §636(b), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin for initial proceedings. He conducted an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and recommends that plaintiff’s claims against the ten “John and Jane Doe” defendants in Count II of the complaint should be dismissed. The magistrate judge concluded that, while plaintiff did not necessarily have to be able to identify the defendants or know the prison officials’ specific titles in order to state a claim against them, he had failed to allege sufficient information “to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claims against him or her, as distinguished from collective allegations.” Doc. #21, pp. 6-7 (quoting Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Collins, 656 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff failed to object to the Report and Recommendation and thereby waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Goodwin’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses without prejudice plaintiff’s claims in Count II against the John and Jane Doe defendants. This order does not terminate the referral to the magistrate judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 6th day of October, 2017. 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?