Whitten v. Hendrix, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARION ALLEN WHITTEN, JR., )
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-229-RAW-GLJ
)
LARRY HENDRIX, et al., )
)
)
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, in which he recommended that the plaintiff’s
motions regarding amendment be denied.
No objection has been filed and the time allotted for doing so has
expired. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may
review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”
Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991). The court
agrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and
recommendation, and finds that “there is no clear error on the face of the
record.” See Rule 72(b) F.R.Cv.P., advisory committee note.
6:24-cv-00229-JFH-GLJ Document 125 Filed in ED/OK on 02/03/26 Page 1 of 2

It is the order of the court that the Report and Recommendation
(#120) is affirmed and adopted as the order of the court. The plaintiff’s
motion to file second amended complaint as per court order (#107) and
plaintiff’s motion to supplement plaintiff’s “motion to file second amended
complaint” (#113) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of FEBRUARY, 2026.
_________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
6:24-cv-00229-JFH-GLJ Document 125 Filed in ED/OK on 02/03/26 Page 2 of 2