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

JAMES EZELL, III, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-608-D ) DAVID COLE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 86] (“R&R”), issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to

(b). Judge Erwin recommends dismissal of the Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 83] in its entirety. After receiving two extensions [Doc. Nos. 88, 90], Plaintiff filed an Objection [Doc. No. 91] to the R&R. In his Objection, Plaintiff only addresses the portion of the R&R related to his claims against Defendant David Cole. However, instead of addressing the substance underlying Judge Erwin’s recommendation, Plaintiff seeks leave to file another amended complaint. See Pl.’s Objection at 1-2. Plaintiff’s Objection thus fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), which requires objections to be “specific.” Indeed, a “party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St.,

(10th Cir. 1996). Although Plaintiff proceeds pro se, and his pleadings must be construed liberally, the Court cannot act as his advocate or relax otherwise generally applicable rules of procedure. See Hall v. Bellmon,

(10th Cir. 1991). Due to the lack of specificity in his Objection as it relates to his official-capacity claim against Defendant Cole, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived review of the issue. Aside from his official-capacity claim against Defendant Cole, Plaintiff does not address any of the other issues discussed in the R&R. Compare R&R at 6-8, with Pl.’s Objection. Therefore, Plaintiff has likewise waived review of those issues. The Court has reviewed the R&R, as well as the case record, and fully concurs in the conclusions reached by Judge Erwin. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant David Cole in his official capacity is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate judgment shall be issued accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27" day of March, 2025.

\ : cx < Nd, Ost TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

' Plaintiff’s “Third Request for Appointment of Counsel” [Doc. No. 78] is denied as moot.