The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-20-266-D
)
)
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Court’s Order granting summary judgment to Defendants BFL-
MLK, LLC, Hank Binkowski, and Susan Binkowski on Plaintiff’s claims, the Court enters
judgment in favor of BFL-MLK, LLC, Hank Binkowski, and Susan Binkowski against
Plaintiff.
Pursuant to the Court’s prior Orders dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against other
Defendants without prejudice, the Court enters judgment in favor of the following
Defendants against Plaintiff:
• Doc. No. 114: Esperanza Real Estate, LLC
• Doc. No. 115: Mike Beckwith
• Doc. No. 117: Municipal Court of Oklahoma City
• Doc. No. 118: Kenneth Jordan (as to all claims in his official capacity)
• Doc. No. 120: Wade Gourley
• Doc. No. 121: Sean McDaniel, Jason Brown, Jessica Sherrill, Paula Lewis,
Tim Coleman, Ben Steffer
• Doc. No. 122: Oklahoma City Public School District 89
• Doc. No. 153: Kenneth Jordan (as to all non-Section 1983 claims)
• Doc. No. 154: Mitchell McCoy
• Doc. No. 156: Wade Spence, Justin Reynolds (as to all non-Section 1983
individual-capacity unlawful arrest claims), Aaron Richards, George Goss
• Doc. No. 157: City of Oklahoma City
Pursuant to the Court’s prior Orders dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against other
Defendants with prejudice, the Court enters judgment in favor of the following Defendants
against Plaintiff:
• Doc. No. 153: Kenneth Jordan (as to Section 1983 claims)
• Doc. No. 156: Justin Reynolds (as to Section 1983 individual-capacity
unlawful arrest claim)
Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, the Court sua sponte dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims against the Oklahoma County Jail without prejudice and enters judgment in favor
of the Oklahoma County Jail against Plaintiff.1
1 Plaintiff’s Supplemental Petition [Doc. No. 60], which was filed on June 17, 2020, named
the Oklahoma County Jail as a defendant. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) required Plaintiff to serve
the Jail within 90 days—i.e., by September 15, 2020. There is no evidence in the record
that, in the over three years since filing his Supplemental Petition, Plaintiff served process
on the Jail. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record that Plaintiff has pursued any
claims against the Jail. The Court will, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) and the Court’s
inherent authority, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Jail without prejudice. See Shotkin
v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 169 F.2d 825, 826 (10th Cir. 1948) (“A district court of
the United States is vested with power to dismiss an action for failure of plaintiff to
prosecute it with reasonable diligence. The power is inherent and independent of any
statute or rule. And where plaintiff has failed to prosecute the action with reasonable
diligence, the court may dismiss it on motion of the defendant or on its own motion.”); see
also Taub v. Hale, 355 F.2d 201, 202 (2d Cir. 1966) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of case with prejudice, noting that Rule 41(b) “and the inherent power of a court
to dismiss for failure to prosecute” allow a district court to “sua sponte, and without notice
to the parties, dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution, and such dismissal is largely a
matter of the judge's discretion”).
Entered this 20" day of September, 2023.
\ i 0 Ot
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge