Dellinger v. Butler

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION MICHAEL DELLINGER PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:22-cv-4115 GINA BUTLER, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 33. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 34. However, Plaintiff’s objection does not address any aspect of Judge Bryant’s analysis.1 Accordingly, the Court 0F 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 Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33) in toto.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of October, 2023.

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

1 The closest Plaintiff gets to making an argument is vaguely asserting that he “still feels that the grievances he wrote should be adequate enough” without providing any further explanation or elaboration. ECF No. 34, p. 1.