Proctor v. Stitt et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ERIC PROCTOR, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-1308-G
)
KEVIN STITT et al., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Eric Proctor, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 1 & 13.1
United States District Judge Charles Goodwin referred this matter to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 5. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary 	Judgment 	and 	Injunctive 	Relief, 	Doc. 	19. 	The 	undersigned
recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and
injunctive relief without prejudice.
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
Case 5:24-cv-01308-G Document 21 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
I. 	Legal standards.
Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56. Id. at 3. “Rule 56(e) provides that, when a properly
supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party ‘must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). So,
“‘[s]ummary judgment should be refused where the nonmoving party has not
had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.’”
Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc., 855 F.3d 1091, 1110 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at
250 n. 5). Here, there is no “adverse party” to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment as no Defendants have entered an appearance and had the
opportunity to conduct discovery. Additionally, there is a pending Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 16, recommending dismissal of several of Plaintiff’s
claims and requests for relief. In other words, Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment 	is 	premature. 	Likewise, 	“[t]he 	Court 	may 	issue 	a 	preliminary
injunction only on notice to the adverse party,” so Plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief is also premature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).
Because Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief
is premature, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny his motion
without prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-01308-G Document 21 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
II. 	Recommendation and notice of right to object.
For these stated reasons, the undersigned recommends the Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this
Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before April 8, 2026,
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned
further advises Plaintiff that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and
Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal
issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th
Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues and does
not 	terminate 	the 	referral 	to 	the 	undersigned 	Magistrate 	Judge 	in 	the
captioned matter.
ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-01308-G Document 21 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3