Gobert v. Newton-Embry, CIV-18-925-C. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20190927f74
Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This civil rights action brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Jones entered a Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2019, to which Plaintiff has timely objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo. The facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Jones's Report a
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROBIN J. CAUTHRON , District Judge . This civil rights action brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Jones entered a Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2019, to which Plaintiff has timely objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo. The facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Jones's Report an..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBIN J. CAUTHRON, District Judge.
This civil rights action brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Judge Jones entered a Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2019, to which Plaintiff has timely objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo.
The facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Jones's Report and Recommendation and there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. In his objection, Plaintiff merely restates the conclusions and legal arguments originally asserted, and raises no issue not fully and accurately addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 61), and for the reasons announced therein, dismisses Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, dismisses his state law claims without prejudice, and declines supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. A judgment of dismissal will enter accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
