IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

JIMMY W. COX PLAINTIFF ADC #510505

v. No: 4:24-cv-00841-JM-PSH

AUNDREA F. CULCLAGER, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. DISPOSITION Plaintiff Jimmy W. Cox, an inmate confined at the Arkansas Division of Correction’s Tucker Unit, filed this pro se

action on October 4, 2024 (Doc. No. 2). Cox was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and directed to file an amended complaint to clarify his claims and describe the appropriate defendants (Doc. No. 3). He was cautioned that an amended complaint would render his original complaint without legal effect and that only claims properly set out in the amended complaint would be allowed to proceed.

Cox

subsequently filed an amended complaint (Doc. No. 4). The Court has screened Cox’s amended complaint and recommends that his claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as further described below.

I. Screening Standard

Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Court must review the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly,

(2007), the Court stated, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face, not merely conceivable.

. However, a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of Corr. & Rehab.,

(8th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

II. Analysis To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that the conduct of a defendant acting under color of state law deprived him of a right,

privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution or by federal law.

. A defendant may not be held liable under § 1983 unless he was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for the constitutional violation. See Mayorga v. Missouri,

, 1132 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Liability under

section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, the law is clear that respondeat superior is not a recognized basis for § 1983 liability. See Keeper

v. King,

(8th Cir. 1997). To state a cognizable claim against a defendant in a supervisory role, an inmate must allege that the defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation or became aware of the constitutional violation and, with deliberate indifference, failed to take corrective

action. See, e.g., Choate v. Lockhart,

(8th Cir. 1993). Cox alleges that Tucker Unit medical staff failed to properly treat his hearing and he has suffered hearing loss as a result. Doc. No. 4 at 4-5. He names two

defendants: Aundrea F. Culclager and Laconya Harris. Id. at 1. However, Cox does not describe how these individuals were involved in the violations he alleges. Instead, his amended complaint mentions grievance coordinator Kaci Golden and Dr. Beck, but does not list them as defendants. The Court previously instructed Cox to clarify who was involved in his medical treatment and to name the appropriate defendants. See Doc. No. 3 at 5. He has not done so. Because he does not describe

any involvement on the part of the two named defendants, Aundrea F. Culclager and Laconya Harris, Cox’s claims against them should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that: l. Cox’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 2. Dismissal of this action count as a “strike” within the meaning of

(g). 3. The Court certify, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from the order adopting this recommendation would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 20" day of November, 2024.

omit