United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District
Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the
hearing before the Magistrate Judge. Judge 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 hearing before the District Judge.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either
before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Vann Bragg is a state inmate confined at the East Arkansas
Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).
He filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 action against four
named Defendants, based on conditions of confinement he
experienced while incarcerated at the Cross and Lee County
Jails. By Order dated March 23, 2016 (Doc. No. 6), this Court
granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
in this lawsuit and provided him the opportunity to amend his
Complaint, finding that his Complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. As of this date,
Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint.
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. Â§
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. Â§
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 a claim. See Martin v.
Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).
action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In
reviewing a pro se complaint under Â§ 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court
must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). The Court must also weigh all factual allegations in