Allen v. Perkins

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: January 11, 2024
• Docket: 5:22-cv-05199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL RAY ALLEN, JR. PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:22-CV-5199

PATROL OFFICER PERKINS DEFENDANT

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 34) of the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, which was filed in this case on December 21, 2023, regarding Defendant Patrol Officer Perkins’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). Judge Comstock recommends granting the Motion and dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff Michael Ray Allen, Jr. filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 35) on December 29. His Objections restate the claims he made in his Amended Complaint—namely that Officer Perkins lacked probable cause to detain him and that he was not required to provide identification to Officer Perkins upon request. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court must give de novo consideration to those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. However, in order to trigger such review, the objections must address particular findings or conclusions of the magistrate judge or assert specific allegations of error. See, e.g., Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report and recommendation to which objections are made.”). Mr. Allen’s filing (Doc. 35) does not reference any portion of the R&R. He

1 merely restates his legal claims and then requests that the Court not dismiss his case. His filing therefore fails to constitute an objection to the R&R that triggers de novo review by the Court. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution and in consideration of the fact that Mr.

Allen is proceeding pro se, the Court has revisited all the pleadings in this case de novo, including the briefing on summary judgment. Following this review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the facts, standard of review, and conclusions of law are correct, and summary judgment is appropriate here. Officer Perkins has demonstrated “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant[s] [are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 34) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. Judgment will enter concurrently with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 11th day of January, 2024.

/s/ Timothy L. Brooks TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE