Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DALTON GAGE HILL, as Personal 	)
Representative of the Estate of 	)
Jeffery Allen Hill, Deceased, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1298-D
)
OKLAHOMA COUNTY CRIMINAL 	)
JUSTICE AUTHORITY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of
Jeffery Allen Hill’s constitutional rights [Am. Compl., Doc. No. 53]. Plaintiff filed suit
against several defendants, to include the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC).
OCDC filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56]. Plaintiff’s response [Doc. No. 74] was
stricken as untimely [Doc. No. 76]. The magistrate judge issued a show-cause Order
[Doc. No. 75], directing Plaintiff to show cause why OCDC’s motion to dismiss should not
be deemed confessed based on Plaintiff’s lack of response. Following Plaintiff’s response
[Doc. No. 77], the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to OCDC’s motion on or
before May 21, 2025 [Doc. No. 86], which Plaintiff failed to do. The magistrate judge then
issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 98], recommending that the Court deem as
confessed OCDC’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against OCDC. The Court adopted
in part the magistrate judge’s report, agreeing that Plaintiff should not be permitted to file a
response to OCDC’s motion to dismiss, but re-referring OCDC’s motion to the magistrate
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 131 Filed 09/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
judge for a consideration on the merits [Doc. No. 109].
On July 23, 2025, the magistrate judge issued the present Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 122], in which she recommends that OCDC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56] be
granted. In her report, the magistrate judge notified Plaintiff of his right to file an objection
to the report on or before August 6, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Plaintiff’s right
to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Upon review of the file and noting no timely objection to the findings and
recommendations 	of 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 122] in its entirety.
For the reasons stated therein, OCDC’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 56] is
GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action against OCDC is
DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2025.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-01298-D Document 131 Filed 09/03/25 Page 2 of 2