Cullen v. Brinkley

Opinion

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

JOHN PATRICK CULLEN PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-6014

KATHI JO BRINKLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 6. Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice because Defendants are either not state actors subject to a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or are entitled to prosecutorial immunity. Judge Ford further recommends that a strike flag be placed on this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Plaintiff filed objections. ECF Nos. 7 and 8. However, Plaintiff’s objections do not address any aspect of Judge Ford’s analysis or provide an argument explaining why Defendants are properly subject to suit pursuant to § 1983. Accordingly, the Court reviews the instant Report and Recommendation for clear error instead of conducting a de novo review. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (specific objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are reviewed de novo); and see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon review, finding no clear error from the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s conclusion is sound, the Court adopts the instant Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) in toto. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is hereby directed to place a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this dismissal will not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of April, 2023.

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