Johnson v. Stout

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 36 Report and Recommendations and granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 6, 2017. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
LARRY JOHNSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

Case No. 5:16-CV-05090

OFFICER J. VERMILLION and
OFFICER SLAPE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (''R&R") (Doc.
36) of the Honorable Mark E. Ford , United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Arkansas, which was filed in this case on July 25, 2017 , regarding Defendants' joint
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) . On April 11 , 2017 , Plaintiff Larry Johnson was
ordered to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and was given until June
15, 2017 , to do so. See Doc. 33. When Mr. Johnson failed to submit a response by the
deadline, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 34) on June 21 , 2017, directing
Mr. Johnson to submit the response or face dismissal of his case due to failure to obey an
Court.

Finally, on June 28 , 2017 , Mr. Johnson submitted a handwritten

Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) , which the Magistrate Judge
then considered prior to issuing the R&R.
Judge Ford recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be
granted and the case dismissed . After the recommendation was filed of record , Mr.
Johnson filed an Objection (Doc. 37) to the R&R on August 10, 2017 . His case includes
allegations that Defendants stopped him illegally, searched his car illegally, confiscated his
and his wife's property and did not return it, and damaged his reputation . His one-page
Objection asserted , without elaboration , that: (1) he did not consent to the search of his

vehicle, (2) the search was not a valid traffic stop, and (3) he and his wife were "profiled
racially, harassed, humiliated publically [sic], abused mentally, emotionally and lost so
much behind this." Id. at 1. He closed by asking that his case not be dismissed and that
he and his wife be awarded compensatory damages.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ), the Court must give de nova consideration to
those portions of the R&R to which objections are made. However, in order to trigger such
review, the objections must address particular findings or conclusions of the magistrate
judge or assert specific allegations of error. See, e.g., Hudson v. Gammon , 46 F.3d 785,
786 (8th Cir. 1995) ("A district court must make a de novo determination of those portions
of a magistrate's report and recommendation to which objections are made.").

Mr.

Johnson's filing (Doc. 37) does not reference any portion of the R&R. He merely restates
his legal claims and then requests that the Court not dism iss his case. His filing therefore
fails to constitute an objection to the R&R that triggers de novo review by the Court.
Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution and in consideration of the fact that Mr.
Johnson is proceeding pro se, the Court has revisited all the pleadings in this case ,
including the briefing on summary judgment. Following this review, the Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge's recitation of the facts , standard of review, and conclusions of law are
correct, and summary judgment is appropriate here . Defendants have demonstrated "that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant[s] [are] entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." Fed . R. Civ. P. 56(a) .

Ill. CONCLUSION
The R&R (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendants' Motion for

2

Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. Judgment will enter concurrently with this
opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this

t

6!..

day of Septemb · r 2017 .

OKS
DISTRICT JUDGE

3