Phillip Gembarski v. Director Dexter Payne, et al.

W.D. Arkansas

Phillip Gembarski v. Director Dexter Payne, et al.

District Court, W.D. Arkansas·Decided June 29, 2026·No. 6:26-cv-06005·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION PHILLIP GEMBARSKI PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 6:26-cv-6005 DIRECTOR DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Mark E.Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 11. Upon preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judge Ford further recommends that the Clerk be directed to place a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike flag on this case for future judicial consideration and that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Ford also recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) be denied.

Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R. ECF No. 12. However, even giving the objection a liberal construction, Plaintiff has not put forth a specific objection to Judge Ford’s reasoning. See U.S. v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927, 932 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that pro se filings must be liberally construed). Instead, Plaintiff primarily reiterates the factual allegations from his Amended Complaint and does not address the various shortcomings in his allegations that Judge Ford identifies. Thus, the Court need only review the R&R for clear error. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that an objection to a magistrate’s R&R must be timely and specific to require a de novo review of the R&R). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 11) in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to place a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike flag on this case for future judicial consideration. Further, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this dismissal

would not be taken in good faith. Lastly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of June, 2026.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION PHILLIP GEMBARSKI PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 6:26-cv-6005 DIRECTOR DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Mark E.Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 11. Upon preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judge Ford further recommends that the Clerk be directed to place a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike flag on this case for future judicial consideration and that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Ford also recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) be denied.

Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R. ECF No. 12. However, even giving the objection a liberal construction, Plaintiff has not put forth a specific objection to Judge Ford’s reasoning. See U.S. v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927, 932 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that pro se filings must be liberally construed). Instead, Plaintiff primarily reiterates the factual allegations from his Amended Complaint and does not address the various shortcomings in his allegations that Judge Ford identifies. Thus, the Court need only review the R&R for clear error. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that an objection to a magistrate’s R&R must be timely and specific to require a de novo review of the R&R). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 11) in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to place a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike flag on this case for future judicial consideration. Further, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this dismissal

would not be taken in good faith. Lastly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of June, 2026.

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

Phillip Gembarski v. Director Dexter Payne, et al., (W.D. Ark. 2026).

Pincite

Phillip Gembarski v. Director Dexter Payne, et al. (Phillip Gembarski v. Director Dexter Payne, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related