Gentry v. Barden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

DELTA DIVISION

MICHAEL/ACHILLES ROMULUS GENTRY

ADC #142633 PLAINTIFF V. No. 2:21-cv-12-DPM

ROOSEVELT G. BARDEN, Captain,

E.A.R.U; JEREMY J. SYKES, Sergeant,

E.A.R.U.; A. JACKSON, Deputy Warden,

E.A.R.U.; K. LAY, Head Warden, E.A.R.U;

M. KELLY, Captain, E.A.R.U.; and

DANIELS, Corporal, E.A.R.U. DEFENDANTS ORDER

On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe’s partial recommendation, Doc. 5, and overrules Gentry’s objections, Doc. 6. FED. R. Civ. P.72(b)(3). Gentry can’t pursue a § 1983 claim against Barden for destruction of property because Arkansas law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Further, Gentry’s complaint alleges no specific facts about Lay’s personal involvement; and Lay can’t be held liable based solely on his supervisory role. Rogers v. King, 885 F.3d 1118, 1122-23 (8th Cir. 2018). If Gentry wants to plead more facts about Lay or Barden, then he must get permission to amend his complaint. But he can’t amend his complaint by way of his objections. Gentry’s official capacity claims for damages, his claims against Defendant Lay, and his claim against Barden for destruction of property are dismissed without prejudice.

So Ordered.

Meng

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge EB Mach 2bal _2-