Wonsch v. Garner et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING 55 Report and Recommendation (as fully set out in this order). The dismissal counts as "prior occasion" or "strike" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 1/2/2018. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROBERT V. WONSCH,
Plaintiff,
-vsDEPUTY GARNER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-0077-F

ORDER
Plaintiff Robert V. Wonsch, a pretrial detainee appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights.
In Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones’ Report and Recommendation of
November 22, 2017 (doc. no. 55, the Report), the magistrate judge recommends that
this action be dismissed, and that the dismissal count as a “prior occasion” or “strike”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Report advises plaintiff that any objection to the Report must be filed by
December 13, 2017, and that failure to object waives the right to appellate review of
the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report. Plaintiff has not objected to the
Report and he has not requested an extension of time within which to do so.
Having reviewed the detailed Report, and with no objection to the Report
having been filed, the court finds that it concurs in the recommended rulings as stated
in the Report and that no additional discussion is necessary here. The Report (doc.
no. 55) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. As recommended in the
Report:



Section 1983 Claims against the State of Oklahoma, OIDS, and the
OSBI a r e dismissed without prejudice on the grounds of Eleventh
Amendment Immunity;



Plaintiff’s claims against Tracy Schumacher ar e dismissed with
prejudice on the basis of judicial immunity;



Plaintiff’s claims against Greg Mashburn and Lori Puckett a r e
dismissed with prejudice on the basis of prosecutorial immunity;



Plaintiff’s claims against James Radford are dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;



Plaintiff’s claims against the Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office, the
CCDC, the Cleveland County Courthouse, and the Cleveland County
Court Clerk’s Office are dismissed with prejudice because they are not
suable entities;



Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims contained in Claims One, Two, Three, Four,
Five, Six, Eight, Nine, Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, and Fifteen a r e
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted;



Plaintiff’s Claims Eleven and Sixteen are subject to Younger abstention
and are dismissed without prejudice; and



The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining claims—Claims Seven, Thirteen, and portions of Claim
Six—which assert violations of Oklahoma law.

In addition, as recommended in the Report, the dismissal counts as “prior
occasion” or “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of January, 2018.

17-0077p004.docx

2