DiCesare v. Makinson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH ANGELO DICESARE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MAKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 21-231 (FAB)
MEMORANDUM 	AND 	ORDER
BESOSA, Senior District Judge.1
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R”)
issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Jackson (Docket No. 144)
regarding plaintiff Joseph Angelo DiCesare (“plaintiff”)’s motion
for injunctive relief. 	(Docket No. 137.) 	This case is before the
undersigned 	judge 	by 	designation 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	292(d).
See 	Docket 	No. 	146. 	For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	below, 	the 	Court
ADOPTS the R&R and DENIES plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.
A 	district 	court 	may 	refer 	a 	pending 	motion 	to 	a 	magistrate
judge 	for 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	See 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(a). 	Any 	party 	adversely
affected 	by 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation 	may 	file 	written
objections within fourteen days of being served with the magistrate
1 Senior United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, sitting
by designation.
6:21-cv-00231-FAB-GLJ Document 153 Filed in ED/OK on 04/14/26 Page 1 of 4

Civil No. 21-231 (FAB)___ 	__ 	2
judge’s 	report. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1). 	“A 	party 	that 	files 	a
timely 	objection 	is 	entitled 	to 	a 	de 	novo 	determination 	of 	those
portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations 	to 	which 	a 	specific 	objection 	is 	made.” 	Lowery
Wilkinson 	Lowery, 	LLC 	v. 	Illinois, 	No. 	25-CV-22-RAW, 	2025 	U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 268063, at *3 (E.D. Okla. Dec. 31, 2025) (citing United
States 	v. 	Raddatz, 	446 	U.S. 	667, 	673 	(1980)). 	“The 	objections
must 	specifically 	identify 	those 	findings 	or 	recommendations 	to
which 	objections 	are 	being 	made” 	and 	“[t]he 	district 	court 	need
not 	consider 	frivolous, 	conclusive, 	or 	general 	objections.” 	Id.
(citing Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir.
1987)). 	In 	conducting 	its 	review, 	the 	court 	is 	free 	to 	“accept,
reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations 	made 	by 	the 	magistrate 	judge.” 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 636(a)(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	brings 	various 	claims
against 	law 	enforcement 	officers 	and 	Oklahoma 	Human 	Services
personnel 	alleging 	improprieties 	during 	an 	arrest, 	an 	allegedly
illegal execution of a writ of assistance in plaintiff’s home, and
violation of his rights during a child welfare investigation. 	See
Docket No. 64. 	His motion for injunctive relief, however, appears
to 	seek 	to 	enjoin 	Kannon 	and 	Ken 	Bailey 	(“the 	Baileys”), 	who 	are
not parties to this action, from evicting him from his land. 	See
6:21-cv-00231-FAB-GLJ Document 153 Filed in ED/OK on 04/14/26 Page 2 of 4

Civil No. 21-231 (FAB)___ 	__ 	3
Docket 	No. 	137 	at 	p. 	3. 	On 	March 	11, 	2026, 	the 	magistrate 	judge
issued 	a 	thorough 	and 	well-supported 	R&R 	recommending 	that
plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	be 	denied. 	(Docket
No. 144.) 	The 	magistrate 	judge 	recommended 	denial 	of 	the 	motion
after 	finding 	that 	(1) 	there 	is 	no 	relationship 	between 	the
injunctive relief sought and the conduct alleged in the complaint,
and (2) the motion seeks injunctive relief against non-parties to
the 	litigation, 	and 	the 	Court 	does 	not 	have 	authority 	to 	enjoin
non-parties 	without 	a 	showing 	that 	they 	are 	“acting 	as 	agents 	of
or 	in 	active 	concert 	with 	any 	identified 	defendant.” 	Docket
No. 144 at pp. 3-5; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).
The 	plaintiff 	filed 	objections 	on 	March 	26, 	2026, 	fifteen
days 	after 	the 	R&R 	was 	issued. 	(Docket 	No. 	145.) 	Plaintiff’s
objections 	are 	untimely, 	as 	they 	were 	filed 	one 	day 	after 	the
fourteen-day 	deadline. 	Additionally, 	plaintiff’s 	objections 	are
not 	responsive 	to 	the 	logic 	of 	the 	R&R. 	He 	presents 	no 	argument
linking 	his 	requested 	injunctive 	relief 	with 	the 	conduct 	alleged
in the Second Amended Complaint. 	Nor does he provide a reason why
the 	Court 	would 	be 	permitted 	to 	enjoin 	the 	non-parties 	named 	in
his motion. 	Although he does appear to request leave to amend his
complaint 	to 	include 	charges 	against 	the 	Baileys, 	see 	Docket
No. 145 	at 	pp. 	5-6, 	he 	ignores 	the 	fact 	that 	the 	prior 	presiding
judge 	in 	this 	case 	already 	ruled 	that 	leave 	to 	further 	amend 	the
6:21-cv-00231-FAB-GLJ Document 153 Filed in ED/OK on 04/14/26 Page 3 of 4

Civil No. 21-231 (FAB)___ 	__ 	4
complaint will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
See Docket No. 61 at p. 4.
Nonetheless, 	for 	completeness, 	the 	Court 	has 	made 	an
independent 	examination 	of 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this 	case 	and
agrees with the magistrate judge’s reasoning as to why plaintiff’s
motion 	should 	be 	denied. 	A 	movant 	for 	injunctive 	relief 	“must
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s
motion 	and 	the 	conduct 	asserted 	in 	the 	complaint.” 	Davis 	v.
CoreCivic, 	Inc., 	No. 	CIV-17-293-JFH-SPS, 	2020 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS
149592, at *9 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 19, 2020) (quoting Little v. Jones,
607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010)). 	Plaintiff has failed to do
so. 	The 	allegations 	in 	the 	complaint 	simply 	have 	nothing 	to 	do
with 	the 	injunctive 	relief 	he 	requests. 	Nor 	does 	plaintiff
articulate 	how, 	if 	at 	all, 	the 	Baileys 	are 	associated 	with 	or
acting in concert with the named defendants in this case.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS
the 	R&R 	(Docket 	No. 	144) 	and 	DENIES 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	for
injunctive relief. 	(Docket No. 137.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, April 14, 2026.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:21-cv-00231-FAB-GLJ Document 153 Filed in ED/OK on 04/14/26 Page 4 of 4