Calloway v. Comanche County Facilities Authority The et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VERONICA WARNER CALLOWAY,
as 	the 	Personal 	Representative 	of 	the
Estate 	of 	Cari 	Jamel 	Warner, 	Sr.,
Deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE COMANCHE COUNTY
FACILITIES AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-25-858-PRW
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 33), which recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in
part Defendant U.S. Renal Care’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12). Plaintiff Veronica Warner
Calloway timely objected (Dkt. 36).1 Defendant USRC did not object. For the reasons
given below, the Court ADOPTS Judge Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 33).
Background
Plaintiff, the mother of a former pretrial detainee at the Comanche County Detention
Center (“CCDC”), brings this action on behalf of her son under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and under Oklahoma law for medical negligence
1 The Objection (Dkt. 36) also includes Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Mitchell’s second
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 34). This Order only addresses Plaintiff’s objections to
the first Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 33). The Court will consider Plaintiff’s
arguments regarding the second Report and Recommendation in a separate order.
Case 5:25-cv-00858-PRW Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4

2
against U.S. Renal Care (“USRC”). Plaintiff’s son, Cari Jamel Warner, Sr., died while in
CCDC’s custody after USRC allegedly refused to provide treatment for his acute renal
failure. On August 27, 2025, USRC moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) Plaintiff failed to
plausibly allege that USRC acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983, and (2)
USRC is immune from liability on the medical negligence claim under the Oklahoma
Governmental Tort Claims Act. Judge Mitchell recommends granting the motion as to the
§ 1983 claim but denying it as to the medical negligence claim. Plaintiff objects only to the
recommendation that the motion be granted in part.
Legal Standard
The Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”2 An objection is “proper” if it is both timely and
specific.3 A specific objection “enables the district judge to focus attention on those
issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”4 Additionally, “[a]n
‘objection’ that merely reargues the underlying motion is little different than an ‘objection’
that simply refers the District Court back to the original motion papers; both are
insufficiently specific to preserve the issue for de novo review.”5 In the absence of a proper
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
3 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996).
4 Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
5 Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C., No. 1:08-cv-01957-MSK-LTM, 2009 WL 2940218,
at *8 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2009) (citing One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060).
Case 5:25-cv-00858-PRW Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4

3
objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any
standard it deems appropriate.6
Discussion
Plaintiff’s Objection restates the argument made in her Response to the Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiff argues that (1) her § 1983 claim satisfies all four grounds the Tenth
Circuit uses to assess the state-action requirement and (2) USRC cannot deny that it is a
state actor for § 1983 purposes while simultaneously claiming protection under the
Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. But Plaintiff offers no new justification for
those two positions beyond reasserting, nearly verbatim, the reasons raised in her
Response.7 Plaintiff therefore fails to specifically identify any legal or factual errors
committed by Judge Mitchell in the Report and Recommendation.8 Thus, reviewing the
Report and Recommendation for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Mitchell that
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that USRC’s conduct of declining Mr. Warner’s
referral is fairly attributable to the state.9 Plaintiff’s allegation that USRC’s “role in the
6 Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167–68 (10th Cir. 1991).
7 Compare Resp. (Dkt. 15), at 10–14, with Obj. (Dkt. 36), at 2–6.
8 Paulsen v. Christner, No. 21-1367, 2022 WL 2165858, at *1 (10th Cir. June 16, 2022)
(finding that objections were nonspecific where they “did not specifically address any of
the magistrate judge’s conclusions” but instead “merely reargued, in the most general
fashion, the merits of his claims” (citing One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1060)).
Regardless, whether reviewing for clear error or conducting de novo review, the Court
would reach the same conclusions as contained in the Report and Recommendation.
9 Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable Golden & Nelson, P.C., 956 F.3d 1228, 1235
(10th Cir. 2020) (“At the heart of each test is ‘whether the conduct allegedly causing the
deprivation of a federal right [is] fairly attributable to the State.’” (quoting Wasatch Equal.
v. Alta Ski Lifts Co., 820 F.3d 381, 387 (10th Cir. 2016))).
Case 5:25-cv-00858-PRW Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4

4
medical care and transition of medical care” renders it a state actor is insufficient to plead
state action. As mentioned by Judge Mitchell, Plaintiff does not allege that USRC is a state
or county facility, that state or county officials controlled USRC’s medical decisions, or
that USRC personnel interacted with CCDC personnel before or after Mr. Warner was
detained.10 Without more, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied any of the Tenth
Circuit’s grounds for establishing state action, including the public function test, the nexus
test, the symbiotic relationship test, and the joint action test.11
The Court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation
to confirm that there is also no clear error on the face of the record.12 Finding none, the
Court concurs with Judge Mitchell’s well-reasoned conclusions and analysis.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 33) and
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART USRC’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of March 2026.
10 R&R (Dkt. 33), at 7–8; Compl. (Dkt 1).
11 See Johnson v. Rodrigues, 293 F.3d 1196, 1202 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Gallagher v.
Neil Young Freedom Concert, 49 F.3d 1442 (10th Cir. 1992)).
12 Summers, 927 F.2d at 1167–68.
Case 5:25-cv-00858-PRW Document 38 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4