Mahler v. Texas County Sheriffs Office et al

1
et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff named as defendants the Texas
County Sheriff’s Office, Matt Boley (the Texas County Sheriff at the time of the alleged
conduct), and Chris Bird (a District Attorney Task Officer for District 1). The matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
On September 18, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 18], in which she recommends that the Court (1) dismiss Defendant Texas
County Sheriff’s Office on the basis that it is not a suable entity under Section 1983; (2)
dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against Defendants Boley and Bird; (3) dismiss
Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims as time-barred; and (4) decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.
In her report, the magistrate judge notified Plaintiff of his right to file an objection
to the report on or before October 9, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Plaintiff’s
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHAWN D. MAHLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-481-D
)
TEXAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 	)
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 23 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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. 18] in its entirety.
For the reasons stated therein, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.1 A
separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st day of October, 2025.
1 The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims. See
Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (“When all federal claims have been
dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any remaining
state law claims.”).
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 23 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 2