Kristich v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ORIN KRISTICH, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-544-R
)
FNU Casady, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff Orin Kristich, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
initiated this civil rights actions alleging that his constitutional rights were violated while
he was incarcerated at Cimarron Correctional Facility. The matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
Now before the court is Judge Erwin’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 88]
recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 79] be denied
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery [Doc. No. 87] be denied. Defendants did not file any
objection to Judge Erwin’s recommendation. The Court therefore finds that Defendants
have waived further review of all issues addressed in the Report. See Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff did file a timely Objection [Doc. No. 89], which requires the Court to make
a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which a specific objection is
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 90 Filed 02/27/25 Page 1 of 2

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, because Plaintiff’s filing
does not raise any specific or substantive objection to Judge Erwin’s analysis or findings,
the Court likewise finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed in
the Report.1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation Doc. No. 88] in
its entirety. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 79] is DENIED and
Plaintiff’s Request for Discovery [Doc. No. 87] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2025.
1 Plaintiff’s objection requests that the Court enter a scheduling order and appoint him
counsel. Upon review of the case, the Court has determined that the interest of justice
would be advanced by requesting legal representation for Plaintiff. The Court will address
this issue further in a separate order.
Case 5:23-cv-00544-R Document 90 Filed 02/27/25 Page 2 of 2