Steven Montrail Triplet v. Van Ninh, individual and official capacities as Officer #219; Kyle Croft, individual and official capacities as Sergeant #88; Jacob Embery, individual and official capacities, as Midwest City Police Officer #0002; City of Midwest City; and Midwest Police Department

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00659
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

STEVEN MONTRAIL TRIPLET, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-00659-JD ) VAN NINH, individual and official ) capacities as Officer #219; ) KYLE CROFT, individual and official ) capacities as Sergeant #88; ) JACOB EMBERY, individual and official ) capacities, as Midwest City Police ) Officer #0002; CITY OF MIDWEST ) CITY; and MIDWEST POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell on August 26, 2025. [Doc. No. 23]. In the R. & R., Judge Mitchell recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for Plaintiff Steven Montrail Triplet’s (“Plaintiff”) failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. [Doc. No. 23 at 6, 8–9]. Judge Mitchell advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the R. & R. by September 16, 2025, and Judge Mitchell warned that failure to timely object would waive appellate review of the findings and recommendations in the R. & R. [Id. at 9]. Plaintiff did not file objections to the R. & R., but Plaintiff did file a Motion to Amend Allegations and Defendants within the time period for filing objections. [See Doc. No. 24 at 3 (dated Sept. 15, 2025)]. The Court does not construe the Motion to Amend Allegations and Defendants as objections to the R. & R. because Plaintiff does not state grounds therein that the Court should not adopt the R. & R. [See id. at 2].

“[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 or for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The Tenth Circuit has “adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate [judge].” Moore v. United States,

950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This rule “provides that the failure to make timely objection to the magistrate[] [judge’s] findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. There are two exceptions to the waiver rule: “when (1) a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object, or when (2) the ‘interests of justice’ require

review.” Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Moore, 950 F.2d at 659). The Tenth Circuit has considered various factors to determine whether the interests of justice require review, which include “[1] a pro se litigant’s effort to comply, [2] the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure to comply, and [3] the importance of the issues raised.” Id. at 1120.

Plaintiff did not object to the R. & R., and neither exception to the firm waiver rule applies. Judge Mitchell advised Plaintiff of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to timely object. [Doc. No. 23 at 9]. The interests of justice do not require review, as Plaintiff has not explained Plaintiff’s effort to comply or Plaintiff’s lack of objection. Alternatively, although the Court is not required to review the record and law de novo, it has done so and determines that the R. & R. should be adopted in full. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 23] and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.! Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Allegations and Defendants [Doc. No. 24] is DENIED as moot.” A separate judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November 2025. ei W. DISHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' As stated in the R. & R., when the Court dismisses a claim pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, the dismissal is without prejudice. 512 U.S. 477 (1994). [See Doc. No. 23 at 8 (“Plaintiffs claims are not cognizable under § 1983, so the Court should dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice.”) (citing Bryner v. Utah, 429 F. App’x 739, 744 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (“[C]laims dismissed on Heck v. Humphrey grounds should be dismissed without prejudice.’’))]. ? The R. & R. recommends denying any motion to amend as futile. [Doc. No. 23 at 8 (“Plaintiff has already amended his complaint, and Heck bars his claims, so the Court should not grant leave to amend as any amendment would be futile.”) (citing Pierce v. Kobach, No. 23-3155, 2024 WL 277555, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2024) (unpublished))]. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend does not detail how his amended pleading would address the R. & R.’s analysis regarding Heck. [See Doc. No. 24]. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend additionally does not comply with the local rules because it fails to attach the proposed amended pleading. See LCvR15.1.