govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-01197-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
B . A . W . , ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-01197-CMS 
 ) 
FRANK BISIGNANO, ) 
Commissioner, ) 
Social Security Administration, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) of United States 
Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens. [Doc. No. 3]. This matter has been assigned to 
Judge Stephens pursuant to In re: Social Security Cases, G.O. 23-1 (W.D. Okla.) (eff. 
Jan. 6, 2023). Judge Stephens reviewed Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District 
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”) [Doc. No. 2] and recommended 
that the Court deny the Application. [Doc. No. 3 at 3]. The R. & R. also recommended 
that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00 
filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report 
and Recommendation, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.3(e). [Id.]. Judge Stephens advised 
Plaintiff of his right to object to the R. & R. by filing an objection with the Clerk of Court 
by June 16, 2026, and explained that failure to timely object to the R. & R. waives 
appellate review of the recommended ruling. [Id. at 3–4]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 

Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R. & R. or request an extension of time to 
do so. The Court also notes that Plaintiff paid the filing fee after Judge Stephens issued 
the R. & R. [See Doc. No. 4]. 
 “[A] party’s objections to the magistra te judge’s report and recommendation must 
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or 
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 
1996). By not objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a party 
waives the right to challenge the legal and factual basis for the magistrate judge’s 
decision. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that 
the plaintiffs “waived their right to appeal the magistrate’s ruling” because they did not 
file any objections); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Our 
waiver rule provides that the failure to make timely objection to the magistrate’s findings 
or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.”). 
With no objection being filed, and upon review of the record, the Court adopts the 
R. & R. in its entirety and denies Plaintiff’s Application. [Doc. No. 2]. The Court 
therefore ACCEPTS the R. & R. [Doc. No. 3]. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight