United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
T. KEARNEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Chief 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.
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.
detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the
hearing before the District 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:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
Christopher Pennington is a state inmate confined at the
Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).
He filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Defendants after he suffered an electrical shock
while working in the Unit kitchen. (Doc. No. 2) By Order
dated June 24, 2019, this Court granted Plaintiff's
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit.
(Doc. No. 4) However, finding Plaintiff failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted against the
Defendants, the Court provided Plaintiff with the opportunity
to amend his complaint, noting that an Amended Complaint
would render the original complaint without legal effect.
(Id., pp. 4)
has now filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 6). Having
reviewed such, the Court finds that the Complaint should be
dismissed for failure to ...