Frederick v. Hamilton et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSEPH FREDERICK, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-847-SLP
)
CASEY HAMILTON, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
O R D E R
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14] issued by United
States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, asserts claims for
violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three
Defendants in their individual and official capacities: (1) Chris Hamilton, GPCC Warden,
(2) A. Johnson, GPCC Correctional Officer, and (3) Ashely Allen, GPCC Bravo Unit
Manager. 	[Doc. No. 1] at 1-2; [Doc. No. 1-2] at 1. 	Plaintiff seeks monetary damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, and legal costs and fees. [Doc. No. 1] at 5.
Upon initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915,
1915(A), the Magistrate Judge recommends a partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
[Doc. No. 14] at 20–21. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the
R&R and directed any objections be filed on or before July 21, 2025. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was
further advised that any failure to object would waive Plaintiff’s right to appellate review
of the factual and legal issues addressed in the R&R. Id. No objection has been filed, nor
Case 5:24-cv-00847-SLP Document 15 Filed 07/25/25 Page 1 of 3

2
has an extension of time in which to object been sought or granted. Therefore, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has waived further review of all issues addressed in the R&R. 	See
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). Upon review, the Court fully
concurs with the analysis set forth in the R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R [Doc. No. 14] is ADOPTED in its
entirety, including the recommendations of: (1) dismissal with prejudice of all official
capacity claims for money damages and retrospective injunctive relief and all individual
capacity claims seeking declaratory or injunctive relief; and (2) dismissal without prejudice
of all official capacity claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as moot; (3)
dismissal without prejudice of the Fourteenth Amendment claim of denial of access to the
courts against Defendants Allen and Johnson; (4) dismissal without prejudice of the First
Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Allen; (5) dismissal without prejudice of
the Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Defendants Allen and
Hamilton; and (6) dismissal without prejudice of claims against Defendant Hamilton for
failure to train and/or supervise Defendants Allen and Johnson. All those claims are
DISMISSED as set forth.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Allen and Hamilton are hereby
dismissed from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim
seeking monetary damages against Defendant Johnson in his individual capacity remains
pending. This matter remains referred to the Magistrate Judge.
Case 5:24-cv-00847-SLP Document 15 Filed 07/25/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 th day of July, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-00847-SLP Document 15 Filed 07/25/25 Page 3 of 3