Opinion
CIV-22-01014-JD
11-09-2023
JACOB CHRISTIAN GOINS, Plaintiff, v. GEO LAWTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; and MICHAEL BOGER, DO, individual and official capacities, Defendants.
ORDER
JODI W. DISHMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Jacob Christian Goins (“Goins”), an Oklahoma state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell for preliminary review. [Doc. No. 3]. Goins has been given opportunities to amend his complaint to allege his constitutional claims. See Orders [Doc. Nos. 10, 13]. Goins filed amended complaints [see Doc. Nos. 12, 15], and his Second Amended Complaint is the operative complaint.
An amended complaint supersedes the prior complaints and renders them of no legal effect. See Predator Int'l, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc., 793 F.3d 1177, 1180-81 (10th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “an amended pleading supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Mink v. Suthers, 482 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2007) (same); Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (same).
Judge Purcell screened Goins's Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 15] and entered a thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. [Doc. No. 17]. Judge Purcell advised Goins of the right to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation by March 28, 2023, and that a failure to timely object would waive Goins's right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the Report and Recommendation. Id. at 9-10 (citing Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) and Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) (emphasis added); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”) (emphasis added).
To date, the record reflects that Goins did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation by the deadline or request an extension of time to do so. Upon its review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 17] and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. A separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.