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

PAUL EDWARD THOMAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-305-PRW

)

) L. CHIBBITY, et al., )

) Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9), recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1), which alleges § 1983 claims against a variety of defendants, without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to timely pay the required $40.00 initial partial filing fee or to correct defects in his Complaint (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff was advised that he had a right to object to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) by June 6, 2025, in accordance with

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and that failure to make a timely objection would waive any right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9). No objections have been filed as of this date. Having failed to object, Plaintiff has accordingly waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9).! Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) in full and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1). A separate judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2025.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,

(10th Cir. 1996); Moore v. United States,

(10th Cir. 1991); cf

(b)(1) (requiring a district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” but otherwise permitting a district judge to review the report and recommendations under any standard it deems appropriate).