Carter v. Golay et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CLAUDE LEROY CARTER, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-2079-J
)
STEVEN GOLAY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred for
initial proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)–(C). 	Judge Stephens screened the Complaint and issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court: (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief
without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine; and (2) stay Plaintiff’s claims for
monetary damages pending the resolution of his state criminal proceeding, State v. Carter, Case
No. CF-2024-4249, District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. [Doc. No. 5]. Plaintiff did
not object by his October 2, 2026 deadline and has therefore waived his right to appellate review
of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation. 	See Casanova v.
Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
On review, the Court agrees that the Younger abstention doctrine applies in this case. See
Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999) (“Younger
abstention is non-discretionary; it must be invoked once the three conditions are met, absent
extraordinary circumstances.”). 	Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] is
ADOPTED in its entirety. 	Plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT
Case 5:26-cv-02079-J Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief are STAYED pending the final conclusion of
Plaintiff’s related state-court criminal proceeding. An appropriate Administrative Closing Order
will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-02079-J Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2