Jackson v. Hicks et al

Filing 14

ORDER accepting the 12 Report and Recommendation and dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jodi W. Dishman on 8/30/2024. (nv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
COREY JACKSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JASON HICKS, District Attorney, individual )
and official capacities; CORTNIE SIESS,
)
Assistant District Attorney, individual and
)
official capacities; MELODY HARPER, Clerk, )
individual and official capacities; JUSTIN
)
SCOTT, Inv., individual and official capacities; )
RYAN ANDERSON, OBN, individual and
)
official capacities; RYAN BLECHER, HSI,
)
individual and official capacities; LUIS
)
BONFIL, OBN, individual and official
)
capacities; CARRIE FARRIS, OSBI,
)
individual and official capacities; CHISHOLM )
HALE, OBN, individual and official capacities; )
MIKE HAUGE, HSI, individual and official
)
capacities; GARRETT HUNT, DPD, individual )
and official capacities; RICK LANG, DTF,
)
individual and official capacities; JENNA
)
MOONEYHAM, OBN, individual and official )
capacities; KEITH POWELL, OBN, individual )
and official capacities; JAMES SHEPARD,
)
OBN, individual and official capacities; RICK )
STRAIN, OBN, individual and official
)
capacities; TIMOTHY VANN, individual and )
official capacities; BOBBY BOWEN,
)
individual and official capacities; JOSHUA
)
BROWN, Det. DPD, individual and official
)
capacities; JAVIER MARTINEZ, Jail Admin., )
individual and official capacities; and
)
CRIMINALIST EDMOND,
)
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER

Case No. CIV-24-00267-JD

Plaintiff Corey Jackson (“Jackson”), appearing pro se, filed this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on the pro se prisoner civil rights complaint form. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court
referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green for
preliminary review. [Doc. No. 4].
Judge Green screened Jackson’s complaint and entered a thorough Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. [Doc. No. 12]. Judge Green
advised Jackson of his right to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation on or
before August 23, 2024, and that a failure to timely object would waive Jackson’s right to
appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the Report and
Recommendation. Id. at 6–7 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)).
To date, the record reflects that Jackson did not file an objection to the Report and
Recommendation by the deadline or request an extension of time to do so.1 Upon its
review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

1

The Court notes that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12] was
returned as undeliverable to Jackson in the mail. See [Doc. Nos. 13, 13-1]. However,
Jackson is responsible for notifying the Court of any change of address, and “[p]apers
sent by the court will be deemed delivered if sent to the last known address given to the
court.” LCvR5.4 (emphasis added); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (explaining that
service is complete upon mailing to the person’s last known address). Thus, the service of
the Report and Recommendation was complete upon mailing. See also Theede v. U.S.
Dep’t of Labor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 1999) (“The parties are far better situated
to know of any errors in their address information, thus, they bear the burden of filing
notice of a change of address . . . . The fact [plaintiff] is acting pro se does not eliminate
this burden.”).
2

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
12] and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of August 2024.

3