Davenport v. Doe

United States District Court, Oklahoma Western

Davenport v. Doe

Trial Court Opinion

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

BRYAN WAYNE DAVENPORT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) No. CIV-20-358-C ) BECKY PATA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff brought the present action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, seeking recompense for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while a pretrial detainee. Consistent with the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B), this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Judge Purcell entered a Supplemental Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on September 15, 2020. In the R&R Judge Purcell noted that Plaintiff’s “Request for Pro Se Status Order” was in reality a request for a preliminary injunction. After weighing the four factors set out in Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inventory Distrib., LLC,

562 F.3d 1067, 1070

(10th Cir. 2009), Judge Purcell recommended denial of Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R. The facts and law are accurately set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 58). This matter is returned to Judge Purcell for further proceedings consistent with the original Order of Referral. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2020.

fi = -_—. a 6 : = ROBIN J. CAUTHRON United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown