Smith v. Bi Haven Investments

W.D. Arkansas

Smith v. Bi Haven Investments

DecidedMarch 10, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-04105

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Smith v. Bi Haven Investments, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

TORIN SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-4105

BI HAVEN INVESTMENTS DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 13. Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because all issues in Plaintiff’s Complaint were raised and addressed in a previous case brought by Plaintiff, rendering the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Smith v. Patel and Bhavin Investments, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-04035-SOH. Judge Bryant further recommends that the Clerk be directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration 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 a timely objection. ECF No. 14. However, Plaintiff does not address any of Judge Bryant’s reasoning and instead reiterates the allegations in his Complaint. Without a specific objection, the Court is only required to review Judge Bryant’s R&R for clear error. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation instead of a review for clear error). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 13) in toto. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is hereby directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief 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 TEXARKANA DIVISION

TORIN SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-4105

BI HAVEN INVESTMENTS DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 13. Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) because all issues in Plaintiff’s Complaint were raised and addressed in a previous case brought by Plaintiff, rendering the claims barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Smith v. Patel and Bhavin Investments, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-04035-SOH. Judge Bryant further recommends that the Clerk be directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration 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 a timely objection. ECF No. 14. However, Plaintiff does not address any of Judge Bryant’s reasoning and instead reiterates the allegations in his Complaint. Without a specific objection, the Court is only required to review Judge Bryant’s R&R for clear error. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation instead of a review for clear error). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 13) in toto. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is hereby directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial consideration. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2025.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Bi Haven Investments, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bi-haven-investments-arwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack