Duvall v. Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 24 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 20 Defendants' Joint Motion to Quash Service of Process, to the extent the mtn seeks to quash plf's 2 certified-mail service attempts of July 2017 (see, doc. nos. 14, 15); DENYING , without prejudice to refiling, 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of 30 Days in Which to Serve and File Proof of Service. Plf is PERMITTED an addl 36 days from the date of this order within which to cause service to be made upon each dft & to ensure that proof of service is filed for each dft. This action is REFERRED BACK to Magistrate Judge Charles B Goodwin for all purposes consistent w/the terms of the original referral. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 11/9/2017. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN C. DUVALL,
Plaintiff,
-vsOKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF
OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-0247-F

ORDER
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin’s Report and Recommendation of
October 5, 2017 (doc. no. 24), recommends that defendants’ motion to quash service
of process (doc. no. 20) be granted to the extent the motion seeks to quash plaintiff’s
two certified-mail service attempts of July 2017 (see, doc. nos. 14, 15). The Report
further recommends that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (doc. no. 21) be
denied without prejudice to refiling, and that plaintiff be permitted 36 days from the
undersigned’s disposition of the Report, within which to cause service to be made
upon each defendant and to ensure that proof of service is filed for each defendant.
No objection has been filed to the Report. Upon review, the court endorses
the entire Report but reiterates here, primarily for defendants’ benefit, the Report’s
statement that the parties have a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses with respect to
service of summons and that incarcerated litigants face difficulties in obtaining
service. See, doc. no. 24, pp. 7-8 of 9.
With there being no objection, the Report is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. In accordance with the recommendations in the Report, defendants’

motion to quash service of process (doc. no. 20) is GRANTED to the extent the
motion seeks to quash plaintiff’s two certified-mail service attempts of July 2017
(see, doc. nos. 14, 15). Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (doc. no. 21) is
DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff is PERMITTED an additional 36
days from the date of this order, within which to cause service to be made upon each
defendant and to ensure that proof of service is filed for each defendant.
This action is REFERRED BACK to the magistrate judge for all purposes
consistent with the terms of the original referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2017.

17-0247p003.docx

2