IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JOHN PATRICK CULLEN PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06020

KRYSTLE WILLIAMS, SALLY SWEEDEN, CANDY WEST, and ELIZABETH TAYLOR DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed May 31, 2023, by the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff John Patrick Cullen has objected. ECF No. 11. Thus, the matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration. Judge Comstock finds that Plaintiff cannot proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to

(g). Further, Judge Comstock finds that Plaintiff has not established either why § 1915(g) should not apply to him or paid the remaining balance of the $350 filing fee and $52 administrative fee. Thus, Judge Comstock recommends dismissing the instant action without prejudice. In his objection, Plaintiff simply notes that he was previously granted IFP status. Plaintiff alternatively asks the Court to “order the ADC – Grimes Unit to remove the $350.00 lien from [his] account.” This is not specific enough to trigger de novo review, and therefore, a clear error standard applies. See Branch v. Martin,

(8th Cir. 1989) (explaining that “the district court makes ‘a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made’” (citation omitted)); Thornton v. Walker, No. 4:22-cv-4114,

, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 24, 2023) (applying a clear-error standard where plaintiff’s objections did not “specifically address any aspect of [the magistrate judge’s] analysis or reasoning”). Being well and sufficiently advised, and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in toto. Accordingly, the instant action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1 0F IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of July, 2023. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

1The Court notes, for purposes of record clarity, that Plaintiff’s currently pending Motion to Supplement Complaint (ECF No. 6) should be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.