Detherage v. Hunter et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA T. DETHERAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE HUNTER et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-26-348-G
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking civil rights relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Doc. 1.1 United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the
matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Doc. 8. The undersigned recommends the Court
dismiss the complaint without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow
the Court’s rules and orders.
I. 	Discussion.
On March 6, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies in
his IFP application as the IFP application was missing the required financial
information and/or signature of authorized officer of penal institution and a
certified copy of his institutional accounts statement for the six-month period
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:26-cv-00348-G Document 14 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
immediately preceding this filing. Doc. 10, at 1. The Court gave Plaintiff until
March 27, 2026, to comply. Id at 1-2. The Clerk of Court sent the order and
appropriate forms to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the Court. See id.
(court notes).
On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second IFP motion. Doc. 13. Plaintiff
also filed a notice with the Court that contained his inmate trust accounts
statement. 	Doc. 	11. 	Plaintiff’s 	IFP 	motion 	is 	still 	missing 	the 	required
certification 	of 	his 	inmate 	trust 	accounts 	statement 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915(a)(2) and the signature of the authorized officer of the penal institution
at which he is confined. See Doc. 13, at 3-4.
The undersigned advised Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the
Court’s order by March 27, 2026, his case would be subject to dismissal. Doc.
10, at 1-2.
Plaintiff appears pro se, but he must follow the same rules as any other
litigant. See Davis v. Kan. Dep’t of Corrs., 507 F.3d 1246, 1247 n.1 (10th Cir.
2007) (holding a pro se litigant “to the same rules of procedure as other
litigants”). The undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this
Court’s order and rules, together with the Court’s inherent power to manage
judicial resources, warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) (instructing that a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff
“fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”); see also
Case 5:26-cv-00348-G Document 14 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir.
2007) (noting Rule 41(b) permits courts “to dismiss actions sua sponte for a
plaintiff’s failure to . . . comply with the rules of civil procedures or court’s
orders”).
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned recommends the Court
dismiss this action without prejudice.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by May 5, 2026, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. The
undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both
factual and legal questions contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d
656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This Report and Recommendation disposes of the
issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00348-G Document 14 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3