Vickers v. Dennis et al

Filing 10

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations in toto; denying as moot 9 Motion to Stay. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 10, 2024.(mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION VICTOR SHANE VICKERS v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 4:24-cv-4014 CHIEF OF POLICE ORLANDO DENNIS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 8. After screening Plaintiff’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge Bryant recommends that: 1) Plaintiff’s Claims 1, 2, and 3 against all Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim, 2) Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and 3) the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim. Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R and the time to do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 8) in toto. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 1 (ECF No. 0F 9) is hereby DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of May, 2024. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge Plaintiff sought to stay this matter because he could not obtain relief for his § 1983 claims until certain state proceedings had been exhausted. ECF No. 9. Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege his § 1983 claims, his request to stay this matter is moot. 1

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?