Richardson v. Doe

          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. ...