United States v. Sutton

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 2:23-cv-02100

GERALD SUTTON DEFENDANT

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. 22. Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11) be granted, and that Judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff as to all claims. Id. Defendant filed timely objections. ECF No. 23. However, Defendant’s objections never address Judge Ford’s analysis or present coherent legal arguments. Instead, Defendant provides an immaterial stream-of-conscious narration regarding various people, events, and entities. 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) (noting that specific 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 that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) in toto. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 11) is hereby GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to pay the Federal Communications Commission’s forfeiture penalty of $10,000.00. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, interest on this judgment shall be at the legal rate until paid in full. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2024. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge