Watson v. Attorney General, Office of et al
Filing
8
ORDER ADOPTING 4 Report and recommendation in toto; denying 2 Motion for Service. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on July 21, 2016. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
SHELLY D. WATSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 6:16-cv-6060
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Barry A. Bryant, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 4). Judge Bryant recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (ECF No. 1) be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections (ECF No. 6) and
supplemental objections (ECF No. 7) to the Report and Recommendations. The Court finds this matter
ripe for its consideration.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff is attacking a contempt order entered against her in Garland County,
Arkansas and is also challenging her son’s arrest and incarceration. Judge Bryant recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Service be denied and her suit be dismissed in its entirety because the contempt
order has not been reversed on appeal and her son’s incarceration has not been challenged on appeal.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
While Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the objections are not
directly responsive to the Report and Recommendation and raise no specific objections for the Court to
consider. Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and
Recommendation in toto. For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in the
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s case
is DISMISSED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of July, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
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?