Askins v. Heck

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACKERY J. ASKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FNU HECK,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-25-1302-PRW
)
)
ORDER
On November 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Leigh Maxfield
issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s
Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2). Magistrate Judge Maxfield
also recommended that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice if Plaintiff fails to pay
the 	$405.00 	filing 	fee 	within 	21 	days 	of 	any 	order 	adopting 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff was advised that he had a right to object to the Report and Recommendation
by November 26, 2025, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and that failure to make a timely objection would waive any right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
4). No objections have been filed as of this date. Having failed to object, Plaintiff has
Case 5:25-cv-01302-PRW Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 2

2
accordingly waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed
in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4).1
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4), the Court:
(1) ADOPTS in full the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) issued by the
Magistrate Judge on November 5, 2025;
(2) DENIES the Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2); and,
(3) REFERS this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings because
Plaintiff has now paid the filing fee in full (Dkt. 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of December 2025.
1 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996); Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring a
district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” but otherwise
permitting a district judge to review the report and recommendations under any standard it
deems appropriate).
Case 5:25-cv-01302-PRW Document 6 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 2