Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority

Opinion

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

DALTON GAGE HILL, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) Jeffery Allen Hill, Deceased, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1298-D ) OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL ) JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Jeffery Allen Hill’s constitutional rights [Am. Compl., Doc. No. 53]. Plaintiff filed suit against several defendants, to include the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC). OCDC filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56]. Plaintiff’s response [Doc. No. 74] was stricken as untimely [Doc. No. 76]. The magistrate judge issued a show-cause Order [Doc. No. 75], directing Plaintiff to show cause why OCDC’s motion to dismiss should not be deemed confessed based on Plaintiff’s lack of response. Following Plaintiff’s response [Doc. No. 77], the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to OCDC’s motion on or before May 21, 2025 [Doc. No. 86], which Plaintiff failed to do. The magistrate judge then issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98], recommending that the Court deem as confessed OCDC’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against OCDC. The Court adopted in part the magistrate judge’s report, agreeing that Plaintiff should not be permitted to file a response to OCDC’s motion to dismiss, but re-referring OCDC’s motion to the magistrate judge for a consideration on the merits [Doc. No. 109]. On July 23, 2025, the magistrate judge issued the present Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 122], in which she recommends that OCDC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56] be granted. In her report, the magistrate judge notified Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to the report on or before August 6, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Plaintiff's right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). 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. 122] in its entirety. For the reasons stated therein, OCDC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56] is GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's action against OCDC is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3" day of September, 2025.

LA Q: □□ TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge