Roydell Shannon v. Superintendent James Byers, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION ROYDELL SHANNON PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 6:25-cv-6124 SUPERINTENDENT JAMES BYERS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Upon preservice screening of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge Ford recommends that the Second Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 11.

However, Plaintiff does not address the reasoning of Judge Ford’s R&R. Instead, Plaintiff simply reiterates allegations and assertions from his pleading. Without a specific objection, the Court need only review the R&R for clear error. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990).

Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 10) in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 2026.

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