Brown v. Oklahoma State of et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EDWARD RENARDO BROWN, SR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-296-SLP
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) [Doc. No. 26] issued
by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell upon referral of this matter. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Plaintiff Edward Renardo Brown, Sr., a state prisoner
appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
against the State of Oklahoma and Fred C. Smith. First, Plaintiff alleges the Defendants
violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights were violated as “[he] was charged with
assault with a dangerous weapon . . . went to trial and was found not guilty.” Compl. [Doc.
No. 1] at 7. Plaintiff also alleges that his 8th Amendment rights were violated by the
Defendants. Id. at 8.
The R&R recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. First, the Magistrate Judge found that both the State of Oklahoma
and Fred Smith were entitled to immunity from suit in this matter. R&R [Doc. No. 26] at
5-9. Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint failed to comply with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8 as Plaintiff failed to identify the faulty prosecution at issue. Id. at 9-10. The
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of his right to object to the R&R and directed any
objections be filed on or before December 17, 2025.1 Id. at 10. Petitioner was also advised
that any failure to object would waive Petitioner’s right to appellate review of the factual
and legal issues addressed in the R&R. Id.
Plaintiff filed an objection. See Obj. [Doc. No. 27]. When an objection is filed, the
Court must make a de novo determination of those aspects of the R&R to which the party
objects, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, in whole
or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Review of all other issues
addressed by the Magistrate Judge are deemed waived. See Moore v. United States, 950
F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057,
1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
the Defendants are immune from suit. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner waived
further review of such issue. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s findings in the R&R
as to that issue and adopts the same.
Plaintiff’s Objection solely focuses on the Magistrate Judge’s finding that he failed
to satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff states in the Objection
that he was found not guilty in an “assault with a dangerous weapon” matter involving a
1 When an Objection is filed, the Court must make a de novo determination of any portions of the
Report to which a proper objection is made, and may accept, reject or modify the recommended
decision in whole or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
“Joseph Fuentez” that occurred in Comanche County. See Obj. [Doc. No. 27] at 1. The
Court, like the Magistrate Judge, is unable to “find any prosecution for which Plaintiff was
found not guilty in Comanche County (or any Oklahoma county) in the online searchable
records.” R&R [Doc. No. 26] at 10. Plaintiff has still failed to identify the underlying
prosecution for which he bases his claims against the Defendants. As such, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge that the Complaint fails to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
27] is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00296-SLP Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3