Martin v. Floyd et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 35 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 12, 2015. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

CEDRIC MARTIN
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 14-cv-4009

DEWAYNE FLOYD; NURSE N. BROWN;
and LIEUTENANT ADAMS

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed April 29, 2015 by the Honorable
James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF
No. 35). Judge Marschewski recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed on
the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rules and has failed to prosecute this matter. See Local Rule 5.5(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff Cedric Martin has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 36).
The Court finds this matter ripe for its consideration.
Martin objects to the Report and Recommendation, asserting that he has been denied access
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules because there is no law library at the
Miller County Detention Center. While pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se
litigant is not excused from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745
F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Martin’s lack of access to a law library and the inability to consult
with an attorney does not constitute an excuse for his failure to comply with the rules. A prisoner
has access to the courts if the state provides the prisoner the capability to bring challenges before the
courts, which was provided here. See Lamp v. Iowa, 122 F.3d 1100, 1105 (8th Cir. 1997).
Moreover, Martin is not entitled to an attorney on his civil claim. Therefore, Martin’s objections
should be overruled.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted in toto. For the reasons stated in
the Report and Recommendations and the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1)
is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of May, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge