Davis v. Louthan

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: July 11, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00502
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EZEKIAL DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00502-PRW ) DAVID LOUTHAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

On May 30, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) in this action, in which she recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Ezekial Davis’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). Judge Mitchell advised Davis of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation by June 20, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and that failure to make a timely objection would waive any right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation. To date, Davis has filed no objections. He has therefore waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation.1 In the absence of a timely objection, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation to

1 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996). confirm that there is no plain error on the face of the record.” Finding none, the Court agrees with Judge Mitchell’s analysis and conclusions. Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) in full, DENIES Davis’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2), and ORDERS Davis to pay the full $405.00 filing fee on or before August 1, 2025. The Court cautions Davis that “[flailure to pay the filing fees by the date specified, to seek a timely extension within which to make the payment, or to show cause in writing by the date specified for payment shall be cause for dismissal of the action without prejudice to refiling.”* IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July 2025.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167-68 (10th Cir. 1991) (‘In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.’’). 3 See LCVR3.3(e).