Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital

E.D. Arkansas

Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-01066

StatusUnknown

This text of Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital (Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

SHERITA SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:25-cv-1066-DPM

UAMS HOSPTIAL DEFENDANT

ORDER 1. Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. She reports living on disability income and having one dependent. 2. The Court must screen Smith’s complaint, Doc. 2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). She says UAMS denied her accommodations and fired her. Smith says she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter on 15 July 2025. She doesn’t attach the papers and gives no other details. Smith hasn’t stated a solid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII. She doesn’t explain why she believes she was discriminated against. And Smith hasn’t identified her job, what accommodations she needed, or who denied her requests. The Court needs more information. 3. Smith must file an amended complaint with more details by 1 December 2025. If she doesn’t, the Court will dismiss her case without prejudice. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2). 4. | Smith’s motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 3, is denied without prejudice. This case is young, and the law and facts here aren’t so complex as to warrant appointing counsel at this stage. Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). So Ordered. J aor □□□ a. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 17 October 2025

_2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

SHERITA SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. No. 4:25-cv-1066-DPM

UAMS HOSPTIAL DEFENDANT

ORDER 1. Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is granted. She reports living on disability income and having one dependent. 2. The Court must screen Smith’s complaint, Doc. 2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). She says UAMS denied her accommodations and fired her. Smith says she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter on 15 July 2025. She doesn’t attach the papers and gives no other details. Smith hasn’t stated a solid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII. She doesn’t explain why she believes she was discriminated against. And Smith hasn’t identified her job, what accommodations she needed, or who denied her requests. The Court needs more information. 3. Smith must file an amended complaint with more details by 1 December 2025. If she doesn’t, the Court will dismiss her case without prejudice. LOCAL RULE 5.5(c)(2). 4. | Smith’s motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 3, is denied without prejudice. This case is young, and the law and facts here aren’t so complex as to warrant appointing counsel at this stage. Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). So Ordered. J aor □□□ a. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 17 October 2025

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sherita Smith v. UAMS Hospital, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherita-smith-v-uams-hospital-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack