Edwards, Jr. v. Cantrell

Opinion

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

CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS, JR. PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

V. CASE NO.: 5:25-CV-5059

SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 4) of the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, regarding Christopher Edwards, Jr.’s Petition for Habeas Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Petition. On April 2, 2025, Mr. Edwards filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 7), which prompted the Court to conduct a de novo review of the record as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review of Mr. Edwards’s Objections, the Court concludes that they fail to engage with the R&R’s legal reasoning. Abstention is not only appropriate here but required pursuant to the doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Mr. Edwards has been appointed counsel in his state criminal proceeding. Though he does not appear satisfied with his counsel’s work thus far, there is no reason why he cannot raise the constitutional questions at issue here in his state criminal case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED in full, and the Petition for Habeas Relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to terminate all other pending motions and close the case. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED on this 10th day of April, 2025. /s/ Timothy L. Brooks TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE