Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_24-cv-01063-1

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · 2025-01-13

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:41:27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
CORY BRYAN NELSON, 
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
-vs- 
 
GARFIELD COUNTY DETENTION 
CENTER, et al., 
 
   Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) Case No. CIV-24-1063-F 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ORDER 
 On December 10, 2024, the court entered an order (doc. no. 9) holding in 
abeyance a ruling on the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 7) of United States 
Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green , recommending the court dismiss this 
action without prejudice to re-filing due to plaintiff Cory Bryan Nelson’s failure to 
pay the initial filing fee of $16.38.  The court granted plaintiff until January 6, 2025 
to pay the initial filing fee.  The court advi sed plaintiff that failure to pay the initial 
filing fee would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice to re-filing.  
The court also advised that no additio nal time to pay the initial filing fee was 
contemplated by the court.   
 To date, the court clerk has not received  the initial filing fee.  Because plaintiff 
has not paid the filing fee within the tim e specified by Magistrate Judge Green or 
the court, the court concludes that Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and 
Recommendation should be accepted, adopt ed, and affirmed, and plaintiff’s 42 
U.S.C. § 1983 action should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. 
Case 5:24-cv-01063-SLP     Document 12     Filed 01/13/25     Page 1 of 2
2 
   Accordingly, the Report and Recomm endation (doc. no. 7) issued by United 
States Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green on is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, 
and AFFIRMED.  Plaintiff Cory Bryan Nelson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is 
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE  to re-filing, pursuant to Rule 41(b), Fed. 
R. Civ. P., for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee of $16.38 as ordered by the 
court. 
 In light of the court’s ruling, plaintiff’ s request for appointment of an attorney 
(doc. no. 11) is DENIED as MOOT.   
DATED this 13th day of January, 2025. 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
24-1063p002.docx 
Case 5:24-cv-01063-SLP     Document 12     Filed 01/13/25     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight