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

CE’DRICK J. BROWN PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:24-cv-06017

MAJOR FREDRICK OTTS; SERGEANT B. MORGAN; and CORPORAL SHANLEVER DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed April 4, 2025, by the Honorable Christy D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 79). Plaintiff Ce’drick J. Brown (“Plaintiff”) has objected. (ECF No. 82). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. In the R&R, Judge Comstock recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) be denied; (2) Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) be denied; (3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) be granted; and (4) this matter be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 79). Plaintiff has timely objected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). (ECF No. 82). However, Plaintiff’s objection fails to articulate a clear argument critical of Judge Comstock’s R&R and instead reiterates many of the factual allegations underlying his claims. The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s attempts to reiterate the same arguments to the Court that he did to Judge Comstock. See Munt v. Larson, No. 15-CV-0582 SRN/SER,

, at *7 (D. Minn. Sept. 23, 2015) (“Simply restating arguments and facts already presented to the Magistrate Judge does not constitute a viable objection to a report and recommendation.”). Upon de novo review, the Court hereby adopts the R&R (ECF No. 79) in toto. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is DENIED. Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) should be

and hereby is GRANTED. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s case should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of June, 2025. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

1The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 81), Motion to Compel/Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 83), and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 84) should be and hereby are DENIED AS MOOT.