United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Plaintiff John Chavis, an inmate incarcerated at the Bowie County Correctional Center, filed this pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 2). By Order dated March 13, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, and provided him the opportunity to amend his Complaint within thirty days, noting that the allegations of his Complaint were too vague for the Court to determine if he stated a claim upon which relief may be granted (Doc. No. 3). The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that an Amended Complaint renders the original Complaint without legal effect. (Id., p. 4) Although Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint on April 3, 2015, it was still too vague to determine if it stated a claim (Doc. No. 5). Following two more extensions of time (Doc. Nos. 6, 10), Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 12). Having reviewed this Amended Complaint, the Court finds it should be dismissed, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, because the Defendants are protected from liability by absolute immunity.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
An action is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Whether a plaintiff is represented by counsel or is appearing pro se, his complaint must allege specific facts sufficient to state ...