Miller v. Amason

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JEREMY KYLE MILLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-00058-JD
)
CHRIS AMASON, Cleveland County Sheriff, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield on February 12, 2026. [Doc. No. 5]. Plaintiff filed
this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 14, 2026. [Doc. No. 1]. Plaintiff
filed his complaint using a Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form, which instructs
that a pro se prisoner must either pay the fee of $405.00 or seek permission to proceed in
forma pauperis. Id. at 1; see also LCvR3.2; LCvR3.3. Plaintiff did neither, so Judge
Maxfield ordered him either to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis by February 6, 2026, and warned him that failure to do so could result in the
dismissal of this action. [Doc. No. 4]. Because Plaintiff did not comply with Judge
Maxfield’s order and the local rules, she recommends dismissing this action without
prejudice to refiling. [Doc. No. 5 at 2].
Judge Maxfield advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by March 5, 2026, and warned Plaintiff that failure to file a timely
objection waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues in the Report
Case 5:26-cv-00058-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
and Recommendation. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the
record reflects that Plaintiff still has not paid the required filing fee or applied for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, Plaintiff has waived any objection to the Report
and Recommendation recommending dismissal. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d
1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that the plaintiffs “waived their right to appeal the
magistrate’s ruling” because they did not file any objections); see also United States v.
2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[A] party’s objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to
preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.”).
Additionally, although the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the
Report and Recommendation unless a party timely objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court has conducted such a review and concludes that dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s local
rules and orders, including Judge Maxfield’s order to cure deficiencies. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962)). “The ‘authority of a court to dismiss
sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an inherent power,
governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage
their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’ . . .
[D]ismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court orders and
fails to proceed as required by court rules.” United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net,
Case 5:26-cv-00058-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Link, 370 U.S. at 630–31; citing Nat’l
Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642–43 (1976)).
For all these reasons, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 5] and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will
follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00058-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3