Fields v. Sharum et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety and denying 2 Application to Proceed IFP (42:1983). Further Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 6, 2011. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
Case No. 2:11-CV-02091
TIMOTHY C. SHARUM, Public Defender;
DETECTIVE KRIS DEASON, Fort Smith
Police Department; JUDITH HANSEN,
Editor, Times Record; JUDGE J MICHAEL
FITZHUGH, Circuit Court
On this 6th day of September 2011, there comes on for consideration the Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 6) filed in this case on July 13, 2011, by the Honorable James R.
Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court
are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 7).
The Court has reviewed this case and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows:
Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and
Recommendations. Although Plaintiff has alleged some new facts, nothing he alleges in his
objections changes the fact that a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot properly
be brought against the named defendants. Plaintiff claims that he did not get a fair trial and received
inadequate assistance from his counsel. He also states, however, that he is currently appealing his
sentence. It seems to the Court that Plaintiff’s claims may be more properly raised and addressed on
appeal from the Circuit Court decision or otherwise through other available judicial avenues.
Regardless, they cannot be made as § 1983 claims in this Court. The Court finds that dismissal of
Plaintiff’s case remains appropriate. The Report and Recommendation is proper and should be and
hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations,
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the Court finds that this case should be counted
as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As such, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag
on the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September 2011.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?