Mitchell v. Warrington

Opinion

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

CEDRIC ARMOND MITCHELL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06069

DEPUTY WARRINGTON, OFFICER STAPLETON, and JANE DOE OFFICERS 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. 9. Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in their official capacities only, however “Plaintiff points to no facts that support his assertion that a policy or custom” of the governmental entity exists that caused the violations Plaintiff complains of.1 ECF No. 9, p. 4. Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No. 10. 0F However, Plaintiff’s objections do not effectively address any aspect of Judge Ford’s analysis or provide an argument suggesting that Defendants were acting pursuant to a policy or custom. 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

1 “Even if Plaintiff were to amend his complaint to sue Defendants in their individual capacity, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Defendants violated his constitutional rights.” ECF No. 9, p. 5. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants created conditions that were intentionally punitive. ECF No. 9, p. 6. Further, Plaintiff does not show that that the conditions were not reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose or were excessive in relation to that purpose. ECF No. 9, p. 5. Consequently, an individual capacity claim based on the facts presented by Plaintiff would fail. 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. 9) in toto.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of September, 2023. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge