Jolliff v. State of Oklahoma et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 45 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 2/4/20. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RANDY RAY JOLLIFF,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-18-486-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin, entered on January 13, 2020, wherein he recommends that this action
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc.No. 45). The record reflects that Plaintiff has
not objected to the Report and Recommendation within the time limits prescribed nor
sought an extension of time in which to object. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth
in the Report and Recommendation, including Plaintiff’s failure to timely file his Amended
Complaint, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1

1

The Court previously dismissed this action on April 5, 2019, because Plaintiff failed to file an Amended Complaint
in accordance with the Court’s earlier orders. (Doc.No. 31). The dismissal was vacated on May 20, 2019, after receipt
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time, wherein he indicated that he had been very ill and hospitalized and had
also been transferred, making compliance with the Court’s prior orders difficult. (Doc.No. 36). The court granted
Plaintiff until July 20, 2019 to file his Amended Complaint, which Plaintiff failed to do, prompting the Court to again
dismiss the action without prejudice. (Doc.No. 37). Thereafter Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen, indicating that he
had been hospitalized and had not received the Court’s prior Order granting him until July 20, 2019 to amend his
complaint. The Court granted Plaintiff forty-five days to file his Amended Complaint, a deadline Plaintiff sought to
have extended via motion dated October 7, 2019. (Doc.No. 41, seeking extension of time, but not indicating how much
additional time was needed). Judge Erwin granted Plaintiff until December 4, 2019, informing him that no additional
extensions were contemplated. (Doc.No. 42). On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff sought to clarify his prior request,
indicating that he had intended to seek a 180-day extension of the deadline for amending his complaint. (Doc.No. 43).
Judge Erwin denied the motion on November 19, 2019 and reiterated the December 4, 2019 deadline. (Doc.No. 44).
On January 13, 2020, having not received an Amended Complaint, Judge Erwin entered the Report and
Recommendation currently at issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of February 2020.

2