From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laubach v. Scibana

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jan 31, 2008
Case No. CIV-05-1294-F (W.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2008)

Summary

dismissing claims against unserved defendants sua sponte under § 1915(e) based upon the fully-developed record that showed that all claims not barred by the statute of limitations were subject to dismissal under the PLRA based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Watson v. Cozza-Rhodes

Opinion

Case No. CIV-05-1294-F.

January 31, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se whose pleadings are liberally construed, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. On December 27, 2007, Magistrate Judge Valerie K. Couch issued her Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 228), recommending that the motions to dismiss of the Scibana Defendants as supplemented (doc. nos. 91/214), Defendant Molskness as supplemented (doc. nos. 148/197), and Defendant Engle (doc. no. 118), be granted. The Report recommended a determination that all claims asserted in plaintiff's Complaint are either time-barred or subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Report recommended that all claims against the unresponsive Defendants (Jordan, McNerney, Luche, Molina, Feltz, Fowner, McCorkall, Jones, Maize, and Peterson) and unserved Defendants (Castro and Lee) be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). The Report further recommended that Plaintiff's motions for entry of default judgment (doc. nos. 188, 224) and motions for injunctive relief (doc. nos. 211, 216) be denied.

On January 7, 2008, plaintiff filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" (doc. no. 229), which is construed as an objection to all matters covered in Magistrate Judge Couch's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court has reviewed all matters covered in the Report de novo.

Having concluded that review, and after careful consideration of plaintiff's objections, the record, and the relevant authorities, the court finds that it agrees with the Report of the magistrate judge and that no purpose would be served by stating any further analysis here.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Couch is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and AFFIRMED in its entirety. The motions to dismiss of the Scibana Defendants as supplemented (doc. nos. 91/214), Defendant Molskness as supplemented (doc. nos. 148/197), and Defendant Engle (doc. no. 118) are GRANTED. The court finds and concludes that all claims asserted in plaintiff's Complaint are either time-barred or subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. All claims against the unresponsive Defendants (Jordan, McNerney, Luche, Molina, Feltz, Fowner, McCorkall, Jones, Maize, and Peterson) and unserved Defendants (Castro and Lee) are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Finally, plaintiff's motions for entry of default judgment (doc. nos. 188, 224) and motions for injunctive relief (doc. nos. 211, 216) are DENIED.


Summaries of

Laubach v. Scibana

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jan 31, 2008
Case No. CIV-05-1294-F (W.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2008)

dismissing claims against unserved defendants sua sponte under § 1915(e) based upon the fully-developed record that showed that all claims not barred by the statute of limitations were subject to dismissal under the PLRA based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Summary of this case from Watson v. Cozza-Rhodes
Case details for

Laubach v. Scibana

Case Details

Full title:AARON LAUBACH, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH SCIBANA, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Jan 31, 2008

Citations

Case No. CIV-05-1294-F (W.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2008)

Citing Cases

Wills v. Drabek

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir.1994). See Laubach v. Scibana, No. CIV-05-1294-F, 2008 WL…

Watson v. Cozza-Rhodes

With regard to the two unserved defendants, Clark and Vincent, it is recommended that the claims against them…