Opinion
CIV-20-942-HE
08-25-2021
JAMES J. WOODFORK, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT NUNN, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff James J. Woodfork, an Oklahoma prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights while he was incarcerated at the James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC). (ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that, by permanently terminating his privilege to correspond with his brother as punishment for an alleged correspondence rule infraction, Defendants violated his First Amendment rights, especially in light of the pertinent regulation which provides for suspension of correspondence only for “up to 90 days” for an infraction of the correspondence rules.
Having previously determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against any individual capacity claims seeking monetary relief, United States District Judge Joe Heaton re-referred this action for resolution of Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief-reinstatement of his correspondence privilege with his brother.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Case joined by Defendants (ECF No. 37), and two “Notices” filed by counsel for Defendants. The first Notice advises the Court that Scott Nunn, the current Warden at James Crabtree Correctional Center (JCCC), should be substituted for Rick Whitten, formerly the Warden at JCCC, for resolution of Plaintiff's official capacity claim for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 38). Mr. Nunn is so substituted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (“An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party.”).
The second Notice advises the Court that Plaintiff's correspondence privileges with his brother have been restored. Plaintiff's signature on this document indicates he has received the injunctive relief he was seeking through settlement of this case. (ECF No. 39).
Both parties agree that the issue before the Court has been settled without need of further litigation. It is therefore recommended that the only pending Motion-the Motion to Stay the proceedings-be denied as moot.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed in this Report and Recommendation, the Court recommends Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Case (ECF No. 37) be DENIED as moot. It is further recommended that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties are hereby advised of their right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court by September 13, 2021. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal questions contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
STATUS OF THE REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.