Albright v. GEO Group Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA ROY ALBRIGHT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-00976-PRW
)
GEO GROUP, et al., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Leigh Maxfield’s
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 41), which recommends that the Court deny Defendant
Emily Timm’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26). Timm timely objected (Dkt. 47), and Plaintiff
Joshua Roy Albright responded to Timm’s Objection (Dkt. 50). For the reasons given
below, the Court ADOPTS Judge Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 41).
Background
Albright, an inmate incarcerated at the Lawton Correctional and Rehabilitation
Facility, brings an Eighth Amendment claim against Health Services Administrator Emily
Timm in her individual capacity, alleging that she was deliberately indifferent to his broken
hand by delaying treatment. Timm filed a motion to dismiss on September 23, 2024,
arguing that Albright failed to (1) exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) allege that Timm
was personally involved in any constitutional violation; and (3) assert facts that establish
an Eighth Amendment violation. In accordance with Rule 12(d), Judge Maxfield construed
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 68 Filed 07/07/25 Page 1 of 5

2
the first and third arguments as motions for summary judgment, and she recommends that
the Court deny the Motion.
Legal Standard
The Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”1 An objection is “proper” if it is both timely and
specific.2 A specific objection “enables the district judge to focus attention on those
issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”3 Additionally, “[a]n
‘objection’ that merely reargues the underlying motion is little different than an ‘objection’
that simply refers the District Court back to the original motion papers; both are
insufficiently specific to preserve the issue for de novo review.”4 In the absence of a proper
objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any
standard it deems appropriate.5
Analysis
Timm’s Objection primarily rehashes theories raised in her Motion to Dismiss. First,
she objects to Judge Maxfield’s conclusion that Lawton Correctional and Rehabilitation
Facility officials made the grievance process unavailable to Albright.6 But Timm offers no
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
2 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996).
3 Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
4 Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., No. 1:08-cv-01957-MSK-LTM, 2009 WL 2940218,
at *8 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2009) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060).
5 Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167–68 (10th Cir. 1991).
6 Compare Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 26), at 2–3, with Obj. (Dkt. 47), at 1–2.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 68 Filed 07/07/25 Page 2 of 5

3
justification for her position beyond reasserting arguments she raised in her Motion to
Dismiss. She has therefore failed to specifically identify any legal or factual errors
committed by Judge Maxfield regarding this issue.7 Next, Timm objects to Judge
Maxfield’s conclusion that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on
Albright’s claim. Timm begins by reasserting her theory that Albright has not shown
substantial harm because he has not shown that he suffered a permanent injury.8 But as
Judge Maxfield found, Albright need not show a permanent injury from delay in care,
“because a reasonable jury could find that he endured considerable pain due to the delay in
medical care.”9
Timm only raises one specific objection: that Judge Maxfield’s analysis regarding
the timing of Albright’s treatment “fail[ed] to account for the undisputed facts that
[Albright] was examined and treated by a registered nurse two days after the reported
injury, received x-ray studies on two occasions which were followed up by [a physician’s]
exam, and referral to Lindsay Municipal Hospital.”10 But these facts (which are fully
7 Paulsen v. Christner, No. 21-1367, 2022 WL 2165858, at *1 (10th Cir. June 16, 2022)
(finding that objections were nonspecific where they “did not specifically address any of
the magistrate judge’s conclusions” but instead “merely reargued, in the most general
fashion, the merits of his claims” (citing One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060)).
Regardless, whether reviewing for clear error or conducting de novo review, the Court
would reach the same conclusions as contained in the Report and Recommendation.
8 Compare Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 26), at 7–8) with Obj. (Dkt. 47), at 4.
9 R. & R. (Dkt. 41), at 18 (first citing McCowan v. Morales, 945 F.3d 1276, 1291 (10th
Cir. 2019); and then Sellers v. Holcomb, No. CIV-06-1249-R, 2009 WL 233360, at *5
(W.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2009)).
10 Obj. (Dkt. 47), at 4.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 68 Filed 07/07/25 Page 3 of 5

4
detailed in the Report and Recommendation),11 do not undermine Judge Maxfield’s
observation that Albright “was not examined by a physician until . . . fifty-one days after
his injury and twenty-two days after notifying Defendant Timm of his injury through a
Request to Staff.”12 Having reviewed the record de novo, the Court agrees with Judge
Maxfield that a reasonable jury could infer that Timm was deliberately indifferent to
Albright’s injury by failing to timely refer him to medical personnel capable of examining
and treating the broken bone. Timm also argues that Albright has presented no evidence
that Timm intentionally denied or delayed his access to medical care. But on a motion for
summary judgment, it is the moving party’s initial burden to show no genuine issue of
material fact.13 Timm has not done so here.14
The Court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation
to confirm that there is no clear error on the face of the record.15 Finding none, the Court
concurs with Judge Maxfield’s well-reasoned conclusions and analysis.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 41) and
DENIES Timm’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 26).
11 R. & R. (Dkt. 41), at 3–4.
12 Id. at 17.
13 Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 353 F.3d 848, 851 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)).
14 Judge Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation does not, as Timm suggests, second-
guess Albright’s treating physician’s judgment. Rather, it correctly concludes that genuine
issues of material fact as to Timm’s conduct precludes summary judgment.
15 Summers, 927 F.2d at 1167–68.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 68 Filed 07/07/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of July 2025.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 68 Filed 07/07/25 Page 5 of 5