Edwards v. Solorio et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LE’ELLIS EDWARDS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-00189-JD
)
MARIO SOLORIO, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Le’Ellis Edwards’s (“Edwards”) Pro Se Prisoner Civil
Rights Complaint. [Doc. No. 1]. The action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Amanda Maxfield, who entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that
the Court dismiss this action without prejudice (“R. & R.”) [Doc. No. 6 at 1]. For the
reasons explained below, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. and DISMISSES this action
without prejudice.
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a dispositive
motion, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[A] party may serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That the district judge performs a “de novo
Case 5:26-cv-00189-JD Document 8 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
determination” does not mandate additional or repeat evidentiary hearings. United States
v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980).
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). Under this rule, “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; these factors 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.
Courts employ a liberal construction to the legal sufficiency of pro se pleadings,
“applying a less stringent standard than is applicable to pleadings filed by lawyers.”
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997). This means that “if the
court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Even so,
the court will not “assume the role of advocate,” id., nor will it “supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s
behalf.” Whitney, 113 F.3d at 1173–74.
Case 5:26-cv-00189-JD Document 8 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Judge Maxfield ordered Edwards to cure certain deficiencies in his Application for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, [Doc. No. 2], on or before February 26, 2026. [Doc.
No. 5]. Edwards did not cure those deficiencies by that date; he did not move for an
extension of the deadline; and he did not request leave to file out of time. Thus, Judge
Maxfield recommended dismissal. [R. & R. at 1]. The R. & R. advised Edwards of his
right to file objections to the R. & R. on or before March 24, 2026, id. at 2, and Edwards
did not file any such objections. On March 18, 2026, Edwards filed a second Application
for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, [Doc. No. 7], but this (1) was filed after the
February 26, 2026, deadline; (2) did not request leave to file out of time; (3) did not
contain objections to the R. & R; and (4) still did not cure the deficiencies in Judge
Maxfield’s order [Doc. No. 5].1
Edwards has waived any objection to the R. & R., and he plainly failed to comply
with Judge Maxfield’s order. None of the facts evince a significant effort to comply, nor
has Edwards provided an explanation as for his noncompliance.
For these reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. in full and DISMISSES this
action without prejudice. A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March 2026.
1 “[P]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235, 1249 n.9 (10th Cir. 2011).
Case 5:26-cv-00189-JD Document 8 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3