The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHARLES JONES, Individually and as )
Personal Representative of the Estate )
Of Matthew Tyler Jones, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-385-PRW
)
COMANCHE COUNTY FACILITIES )
AUTHORITY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 13), which recommends that the Court deny Defendant Comanche
County Board of County Commissioners’s (“the Board”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7). The
Board timely objected (Dkt. 14), and Plaintiff Jones responded to the Board’s Objection
(Dkt. 15). For the reasons given below, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. 13).
Background
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Matthew Tyler Jones was an inmate at Comanche
County Detention Center (CCDC) in August of 2023 when he was fatally stabbed. Plaintiff
alleges that various “unlawful policies and customs[,]” were the impetus for his death,
specifically identifying (1) “continued overcapacity and overcrowding of inmates” both
overall and in their cells, inadequate monitoring of the jail population, and inadequate
staffing.1 The Board filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) on April 11, 2025, arguing that (1)
Plaintiff improperly brought a § 1983 claim in his individual capacity (which has since
been mooted by Plaintiff clarifying in his Response that he has not brought this action in
his individual capacity); (2) the Board is not a proper Defendant owing to it not possessing
final policy-making authority regarding the jail’s operation; and (3) that Plaintiff has failed
to plead sufficient facts to allege the jail was inadequately funded. Judge Erwins
recommends that the Court deny the Motion.
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
1 Compl. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 3), at 6–7.
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).
objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any
standard it deems appropriate.6
Analysis
The Board’s Objection largely rehashes theories raised in its Motion to Dismiss.
First, it objects to Judge Erwin’s conclusion that it is a proper defendant. The Board argues
that state law abrogates any authority it has to exercise control over the public trust that
operates the jail. But the precedents from this district upon which Judge Erwin relied have
concluded that Oklahoma law does not presumptively preclude suits against boards of
county commissioners when county jails are operated by public trusts, as “Oklahoma law
requires that the Board be named ‘[i]n all suits or proceedings by or against a county[.]’”7
The Board offers no convincing argument as to why Judge Erwin was wrong to rely on
those precedents. Judge Erwin properly concluded that the extent of the Board’s
policymaking authority over the trust and, consequently, the jail, is a fact question.
The Board also disputes Judge Erwin’s finding that Plaintiff adequately alleged that
lack of funding caused Jones’s death. But Judge Erwin reasonably concluded that
Plaintiff’s allegations of overcrowding and inadequate staffing imply insufficient funding.
And at this stage, the Complaint may simply allege facts that let the Court draw reasonable
inferences that the Board is liable for understaffing and overcrowding the jail.8
6 Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167–68 (10th Cir. 1991).
7 Neal v. Oklahoma Cnty. Criminal Justice Authority, Case No. CIV-24-575-JD, 2025 WL
1104777, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 5,2025) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
8 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
The Court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation
to confirm that there is no clear error on the face of the record.’ Finding none, the Court
concurs with Judge Erwin’s well-reasoned conclusions and analysis.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13) and
DENIES the Board’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of March 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
? Summers, 927 F.2d at 1167-68.