Ogiamien v. Acey

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

VINCENT OGIAMIEN PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-767-DPJ-ASH

OFFICER UNKNOWN ACEY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Vincent Ogiamien filed this conditions-of-confinement complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Unknown Acey, Christopher Dykes, and John Hunt. Compl. [1] at 2–3; see Am. Compl. [15] at 2. Ogiamien seeks to add the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) as a defendant. Pl.’s Mot. [3] at 1. On August 21, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris entered a Report and Recommendation [17], recommending denying Ogiamien’s motion to amend [3] as futile because he cannot maintain a § 1983 claim against an arm of the state. R&R [17] at 3. Ogiamien did not file an objection, and the time to do so has passed. Id. at 4 (advising Plaintiff he had 14 days to object). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendation of Judge Harris. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [17] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court. Plaintiff’s motion to amend [3] is denied. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 10th day of September, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE