Robert Eaton v. S. Friar, Inmate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION ROBERT EATON PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 6:26-cv-06029 S. FRIAR, Inmate DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on April 30, 2026, by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

ECF No. 10. Judge Ford recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders. Id. at 2. Specifically, Judge Ford found that Plaintiff has not submitted either a filing fee or an IFP application, despite several Court orders directing Plaintiff to do so. Id. Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation; however, he does not submit a filing fee or an IFP application or explain his failure to do so. ECF Nos. 11, 12. Instead, Plaintiff states that he wishes “he can live [his] life at home with all of [his] property,” lists his property, and draws his home. ECF No. 11. Before his deadline to timely object, Plaintiff filed a supplement to his objections, in which he states, among other things, that he is mentally disabled and has been “used for [his] social security money[,] land[,] home[, and] property . . . .” ECF No. 12. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted his filing fee or IFP application.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not specific and will review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990) (instructing that objections must be timely and specific to trigger de novo review); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that the “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies to the portions of a magistrate’s report and recommendation to which no objections have been made). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in toto. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of June, 2026. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Senior United States District Judge