Brainerd v. Ward

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

LOGAN HUNTER BRAINERD PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:23-cv-04067 SHERIFF CHAD WARD, 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. 8. After evaluating Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1) for pre-service screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge Bryant recommends that all of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for filing frivolous claims and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff filed timely objections. ECF No. 9. However, Plaintiff’s objections never address Judge Bryant’s analysis or present coherent arguments. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates the general allegations in his complaint and presents irrelevant objections, such as requesting a judge that is not based in Texarkana, Arkansas. Accordingly, the Court 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. 8) in toto. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Speak with Judge (ECF No. 11) is hereby DISMISSED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of January, 2024. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge