Hooper v. Stitt

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: March 9, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00988
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

J.D. HOOPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-22-988-D ) JOHN KEVIN STITT, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Judge Erwin recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed an objection. See [Doc. No. 5]. Thus, the Court must conduct a de novo review of the issues specifically raised by the objection, and may accept, modify, or reject the recommended decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Judge Erwin recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See R. & R. at 6 (“[I]njunctive relief requesting immediate release from custody is not a cognizable claim for relief in a § 1983 action.”) (quoting Graham v. Waters, 805 F. App’x 572, 579 (10th Cir. 2020)); see id. at n.2 (“[A]ny request for declaratory relief in relation to [an invalid claim] is not viable.”) (citing Long v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 670 F. App’x 670, 671-72 (10th Cir. 2016)). In his objection, Plaintiff generally ignores Judge Erwin’s analysis and repeats, verbatim, many of the arguments previously presented in his complaint. Compare Pl.’s Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at 5-21, 23, with Pl.’s Objection [Doc. No. 5] at 2, 5-22. The Court finds that Plaintiff's failure to identify any specific error in Judge Erwin’s analysis prevents further review. See United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court.”). The Court, having conducted a de novo review after assessing the entirety of the report and recommendation and the case record, finds that Plaintiff's Objection [Doc. No. 5] should be overruled. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4] is ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9" day of March, 2023.

\ ~ 2 Wy QQ, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge