UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JARMAIL HUFFMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-1268-R ) CHARLES GREGORY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and (C). Upon screening, Judge Mitchell recommends partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. Within the time to file an objection to the Report, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file an objection. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and extended the time to file an objection to May 17, 2025. The extended deadline has now passed and, to date, Plaintiff has not filed an objection, even though he was expressly informed of his right to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United States,

(10th Cir. 1991); United States v. 2121 East 30th Street,

(10th Cir. 1996). The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] in its entirety and, for the reasons stated therein, the following claims are dismissed: e Claims against Defendants Gregory, Guitierrez, and Hood in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice. e Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant GEO Group and against Defendant Hood in her individual capacity are dismissed without prejudice. e Eighth Amendment claims for deprivation of basic hygiene and deprivation of adequate clothing against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez in their individual capacities are dismissed without prejudice. e Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Hood and GEO Group are dismissed without prejudice. e Plaintiff's claim for failure to train against Defendant Hood and GEO Group are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and deprivation of adequate medical care against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez in their individual capacities and Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Gregory and Guitierrez in their individual capacities have not been dismissed. This action remains referred in accordance with the initial case referral. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30" day of May, 2025.

DAVID L. RUSSELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE