Blanchard v. Garfield Co Court et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES R. BLANCHARD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-450-G
)
GARFIELD CO. COURT et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Plaintiff James R. Blanchard, a state prisoner appearing pro se, initiated this federal
civil rights action on May 3, 2024. See Compl. (Doc. No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for preliminary
review.
On November 21, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 28) recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed on screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically,
Judge Mitchell found that two of the named defendants are entitled to immunity and that
Plaintiff’s remaining claims are barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). See R. & R. at 6-11.
Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the R. & R. See Doc. No. 31. Pursuant to
controlling authority, the Court reviews de novo the portions of the R. & R. to which
specific objections have been made. See United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057,
1060 (10th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Case 5:24-cv-00450-G Document 36 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s Objection largely reurges the merit of his legal claims and points to
alleged errors by the state courts in his prior attempts to obtain relief. See Pl.’s Obj. at 1-
2. Nothing therein evinces any error in Judge Mitchell’s specific findings regarding either
immunity or Heck or in the R. & R.’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead a
claim for relief in the instant action. See R. & R. at 6-11; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 28) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s
subsequent Motions (Doc. No. 34) are DENIED as moot in light of this determination.
A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00450-G Document 36 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2