Harris v. Ball et al
Filing
10
ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in toto; Plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on this case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on November 18, 2021. (jlm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JAY LLOYD HARRIS
v.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:21-cv-6118
DEPUTY WARDEN RICHARD T. BALL,
DIRECTOR DEXTER PAYNE and DR.
GUY M. HENRY
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed October 19, 2021, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 8). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Corrections (“ADC”)
and has filed a Complaint alleging that he has been denied reasonable work accommodations in
violation of 42 U.S.C § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from
severe migraines that result from prolonged sunlight exposure. Despite this, Plaintiff’s current
work assignment requires him to work outside in direct sunlight. Plaintiff states that Defendants
failed to consider his migraine issues when they assigned him to outside work. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants’ failure to consider his migraines when assigning his work detail violate certain
ADC policies that guarantee reasonable work accommodations. The Complaint does not allege
that Plaintiff has suffered any deprivation of his constitutional rights.
The Court referred Plaintiff’s Complaint to Judge Bryant for preservice screening pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Judge Bryant recommends
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice pursuant to the PLRA because the
Complaint fails to state a plausible claim that his constitutional rights were violated as required by
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8). Indeed, under the PLRA, the Court must dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 9).
Although Plaintiff’s objections now, for the first time, reference the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, the objections do not address Judge Bryant’s findings that the
Complaint itself fails to allege that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been violated.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation in that Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that his constitutional rights have been
violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 8) in toto. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of November, 2021.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
2
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?