Avelar v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Boards Motion to Dismiss 16 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Boards previous Motion to Dismiss 7 , which addressed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 1-2], is therefore DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/5/2025. (jee)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RODOLFO AVELAR, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Andrew Avelar, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-24-909-D

ORDER
Plaintiff Rodolfo Avelar, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrew
Avelar, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oklahoma state law.
Defendant Board of County Commissioners for Oklahoma County (Board) moved to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 16], to which Plaintiff filed a
response [Doc. No. 19]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shon
T. Erwin for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
On February 14, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 23], in which he recommended denying the Board’s Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. No. 16]. The magistrate judge notified the Board that it could file an objection to the
R&R on or before March 3, 2025, and that failure to timely object to the R&R waives the
right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained therein. See Casanova
v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).

Upon review of the file and noting no timely objection to the findings and
recommendations of the magistrate judge, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation, the Board’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Board’s previous Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. No. 7], which addressed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 1-2], is
therefore DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2025.

. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge