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

RONALD DENGLO BLEDSOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1071-PRW

)

) MYKEL FRY, et al., )

) Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 5), recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s civil rights Complaint (Dkt. 1) without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to timely pay the required $405 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was advised that he had a right to object to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 5) by November 12, 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. 5). 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. 5).1

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

, 1059–60 (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 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 5) in full and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1). A separate judgment will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of December 2025.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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).