IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ELGRET LORENZO BURDEX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-19-886-D ) TIM BRAUER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Judge Erwin recommends the dismissal of this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a prior order that he pay the filing fee or submit a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Within the time period for filing an objection to the Report, Plaintiff has made two pro se filings in this case:1 1) a document liberally construed as a Motion [Doc. No. 16], requesting that certain prior and pending cases be allowed “to become companion cases;” and 2) a letter [Doc. No. 17] stating he “disagree[s] with the dismissal of [his] cases” because he “didn’t ask for habeas corpus relief in [his] amended complaint.” Neither filing is responsive to Judge Erwin’s finding that Plaintiff “has failed to either submit the required financial documentation or pay the filing fee” for this case. See R&R

1 Plaintiff has also made a filing in another pending case. See Burdex v. Gerlach, Case No. CIV-19-919-D, Pl.’s Mot. Produc. Docs. (W.D. Okla. Nov. 15, 2019). at 3.2. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to file a timely and specific objection to the Report, even though he was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object. See

. For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States,

(10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St.,

(10th Cir. 1996). Further, for the reasons stated by Judge Erwin, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling.* IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions [Doc. Nos. 10, 14, 16] are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of November, 2019.

Ail, NV VN iW) N TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

2 Although Judge Erwin recounts that a prior order to cure deficiencies in the Complaint advised Plaintiff that he could not obtain habeas corpus relief in a civil rights case and that he would need to omit habeas claims and file a separate action regarding them (see 9/30/19 Order [Doc. No. 8], Plaintiff neither filed an amended complaint nor initiated a separate habeas case. > During the pendency of this case, Plaintiff filed another civil rights case that, according to his pro se Motion [Doc. No. 16], involves the “same issues.” See supra note 1. Therefore, no additional case filing is contemplated by the Court.