Huffman v. Gregory et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JARMAIL HUFFMAN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1268-R
)
CHARLES GREGORY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued
by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and (C). Upon screening, Judge Mitchell recommends partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s
claims.
Within the time to file an objection to the Report, Plaintiff filed a request for an
extension of time to file an objection. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and extended
the time to file an objection to May 17, 2025. The extended deadline has now passed and,
to date, Plaintiff has not filed an objection, even though he was expressly informed of his
right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object.
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed
in the Report. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); United
States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] in its entirety and,
for the reasons stated therein, the following claims are dismissed:
Case 5:24-cv-01268-R Document 18 Filed 05/30/25 Page 1 of 2

2
• 	Claims against Defendants Gregory, Guitierrez, and Hood in their official
capacities are dismissed with prejudice.
• 	Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant GEO Group and against
Defendant Hood in her individual capacity are dismissed without prejudice.
• 	Eighth Amendment claims for deprivation of basic hygiene and deprivation
of adequate clothing against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez in their
individual capacities are dismissed without prejudice.
• 	Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hood and
GEO Group are dismissed without prejudice.
• 	Plaintiff’s claim for failure to train against Defendant Hood and GEO Group
are dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and deprivation of adequate
medical care against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez in their individual capacities and
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez
in their individual capacities have not been dismissed. This action remains referred in
accordance with the initial case referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30 th day of May, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-01268-R Document 18 Filed 05/30/25 Page 2 of 2