IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ROCKY D. JOHNS, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #163599 v. No. 4:23-CV-00289-LPR DEANGELO EARL, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin.’ No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects.’ Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 2 and 7) are DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state a viable constitutional claim for relief. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. The Court recommends that dismissal of this case count as a “strike,” in the future, for purposes of

(g). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of November 2023.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'Doe. 5. ? The Court notes that, after the RD was submitted, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. See Doc. 7. The Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies in the original Complaint. Thus, dismissal of the Amended Complaint is appropriate for the same reasons discussed in the RD with regard to the original Complaint. The Court also notes that, because of the availability of post-deprivation remedies, the Court need not address the legal distinction between negligent and intentional deprivation of property. See Daniels v. Williams,

(1986).