Galbraith v. ACH et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASON DEAN GALBRAITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1148-J
)
ACH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. No. 1] and a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 2]. The matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge
Mitchell granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to make
an initial partial payment of $33.75. When Plaintiff did not comply, Judge Mitchell issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. [Doc.
No. 13]. Rather than objecting, Plaintiff filed a change of address on which he wrote “I’ve been
moved to LARC the $33.75 was/is on my account, can we proceed with the ACH case?” [Doc.
No. 14]. The Court construed Plaintiff’s statement as requesting an extension of time to pay the
$33.75 initial filing fee and granted the same. Plaintiff was cautioned that he was responsible for
initiating the payment with prison officials and could attach a copy of the Court’s Order to facilitate
his request. [Doc. No. 15]. Plaintiff’s payment was due no later than January 7, 2026, and he was
cautioned that failure to comply with the Order would likely result in the Court’s adoption of the
Report and Recommendation and dismissal of the action. See id.
Case 5:25-cv-01148-J Document 18 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff did not make the initial filing fee payment or otherwise respond to the Court’s
Order.1 Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] is ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate judgment will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2026.
1 The Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable [Doc. No. 16]; however, the
Court’s Order granting Plaintiff additional time to make the filing fee payment, and cautioning
him that his failure to comply would likely result in dismissal, was not returned.
Case 5:25-cv-01148-J Document 18 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2