Sheets v. Mackey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION AARON MICHAEL SHEETS PLAINTIFF v. No. 5:24-cv-5073 DETECTIVE JOHN MACKEY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received a report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 8) from United States Magistrate Judge Christy D. Comstock. The Magistrate Judge recommends on preservice screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A that Plaintiff’s Claims 3–7, as well as all of Plaintiff’s official capacity claims, be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Doc. 8, p. 12). The Magistrate Judge additionally recommends that Plaintiff’s Claims 1 and 2 be allowed to proceed. Id. Plaintiff has filed an objection (Doc. 9) to the R&R challenging only the exclusion of Claims 3–7.

Upon de novo review, the Court finds that the R&R should be adopted in part insofar as it recommends dismissal of the official capacity claims and Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7. However, the Court believes that Claim 5 can be read to allege a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[I]f the essence of an allegation is discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.”). Accordingly, the Court will decline to adopt the R&R as regards Count 5.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED IN PART as set forth above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7, as well as all claims against any defendants in their official capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Claims 1, 2, and 5 be allowed to proceed for service and further litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2024. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE