Balentine v. Marshall

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MARK LEE BALENTINE PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-6136

ORLANDO DOSIA; JAILER ZACH MARSHALL; and SHERIFF JASON WATSON DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Christy D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 6. Upon preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Judge Comstock recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Orlando Dosia be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that he is subject to 42 U.S.C § 1983 claims. Judge Comstock further recommends that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Zach Marshall and Jason Watson be permitted to proceed. Plaintiff filed a timely objection (ECF No. 7), but it does not address any of Judge Comstock’s reasoning and is insufficiently specific to require a de novo review of the R&R.1 See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) 0F (noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Comstock’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 6) in toto. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Orlando Dosia are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Zach Marshall and Jason Watson may proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2024.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

1 Plaintiff simply provides a copy of his complaint and circles his general allegations. ECF No. 7, p. 3.