United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
AMENDED AND SUBSTITUTED PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J.
VOLPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
INSTRUCTIONS
The
following amended and substituted recommended disposition has
been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.
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 the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
following:
1. Why
the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why
the evidence proffered at the 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:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
72201-3325
DISPOSITION
I.
INTRODUCTION
Sherman
Richardson (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at the
W.C. “Dub” Brassell Adult Detention Center
(“Detention Center”) and filed this action
pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No.
2.) As a part of the screening process, on October 29, 2018 I
notified Plaintiff that his Complaint, as currently pled
(Doc. No. 2), failed to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. (Doc. No. 3, at 4.) Plaintiff was given thirty
days to cure the Complaint's defects by filing a
superseding Amended Complaint. (Id.) After Plaintiff
failed to file an Amended Complaint with the time provided to
do so, I recommended that his Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff then filed a superseding
Amended Complaint on December 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 6).
Therefore, I withdraw my previous recommendation and submit
this amended and substituted recommendation.
Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), I have now screened
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. After careful review, I
find it should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II.
...