United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Frederick
Rideout Gray, Jr., a state pre-trial detainee who appears
pro se and whose pleadings are liberally construed.
Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones filed a Report and
Recommendation (the Report, doc. no. 19), which recommends
dismissal of this action upon screening under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Report
recommends dismissal of certain claims without prejudice and
dismissal of other claims with prejudice. The Report also
recommends that the court deny plaintiff's motion for
appointment of counsel. Doc. no. 5. Plaintiff objects to the
Report. Doc. no. 24. Plaintiff has also filed a number of new
objected to matters are reviewed de novo. Plaintiff
objects to all aspects of the Report, save one. Plaintiff
states no objection to the Report's recommendation that
his failure to protect claims should be dismissed without
prejudice. He states that he has abandoned these particular
claims because he is unable to support them at this time.
Accordingly, other than the Report's recommended
dismissal without prejudice of the failure to protect claims,
the entirety of the Report has been reviewed de
conducted that review, the court finds and concludes that it
agrees with the recommendations contained in the Report.
Furthermore, given the detailed analysis of Mr. Gray's
claims which the magistrate judge presents in the Report, the
court finds that no further discussion is necessary here.
Accordingly, Mr. Gray's objections to the Report are
DENIED, and the Report is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED (with a minor
clerical correction) and AFFIRMED.
accordance with the recommendations in the Report, this
action is DISMISSED on screening pursuant to §
1915A(b)(1) and § 1915(e)(2)(B).
following § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice:
plaintiff's claims 1) that he has been denied physical
and mental health treatment; 2) that defendant Juarez filed a
bogus misconduct report against plaintiff in retaliation; 3)
that plaintiff has been denied programs in violation of equal
protection; and 4) that various defendants failed to protect
plaintiff from inmate assault.
official capacity claims seeking monetary relief against the
Department of Corrections defendants are also dismissed
following § 1983 claims are dismissed with prejudice:
plaintiff's claims 1) that officials have ignored or
rejected his grievances in violation of due process and the
First Amendment; 2) that plaintiff has been denied access to
programs in violation of due process; 3) that various
defendants filed bogus misconduct charges, with malice or to
cover their own wrong-doing; and 4) that various defendants
promulgated an unconstitutional lights-out policy, requiring
lights off after 10:00 p.m.
all of plaintiff's federal claims are dismissed. Having
dismissed those claims, the court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, all of
which are dismissed without prejudice for that reason.
dismissal of plaintiff's federal and state claims
terminates all of the defendants, terminates all of
plaintiff's requests for relief, and results in dismissal
of the complaint in its entirety.
court also agrees with and ADOPTS the Report's
recommendation that Mr. Gray's motion for appointment of
counsel be denied. That motion is DENIED. Doc. no. 5.
court has considered the new motions filed by Mr. Gray.
Defendants have not responded to these new motions, nor is a
response yet due. However, no response is necessary in order
for the court to rule. None of these new motions changes any
results stated in this order, and the motions are all denied
no. 25. The motion for a stay is DENIED as moot.
no. 26. This motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1),
Fed. R. Civ. P., seeks to correct in advertent legal context
mistakes. It asks the court to permit Mr. Gray to clarify
some of the allegations which the Report found insufficient.
In other words, this motion appears to argue that leave to
amend should be permitted. Mr. Gray has filed a separate
motion for leave to amend, addressed next. Moreover, to the
extent this motion should be construed as a ...