Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_23-cv-04040/USCOURTS-arwd-4_23-cv-04040-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

ANTONIO PIERRE PERKINS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:23-cv-04040

DEPUTY SHERIFF JUSTIN CRAIN and 

DEPUTY SHERIFF GARY DORMAN DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Barry A. 

Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 26. Judge 

Bryant recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) be granted for failure to 

prosecute and comply with orders of the Court and that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

(ECF No. 12) be dismissed. 

Defendant filed timely objections. ECF No. 27. However, Defendant’s objections never 

address Judge Bryant’s analysis. Instead, Defendant summarily states that he “object[s] on the 

didmissal [sic] of the case” and “attached the Affidavit of Fact Write of Error and Criminal 

Complaint [sic] . . . describing [his] objection.” Id. These documents do not provide any

specific objection to the Report and Recommendation but are simply a refiling of documents 

previously attached to Plaintiff’s operative complaint. See ECF No. 12-1. Accordingly, the 

Court reviews the instant Report and Recommendation for clear error instead of conducting a de 

novo review. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that specific 

objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the 

issues are reviewed de novo); and see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Upon review, finding that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge 

Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) in 

Case 4:23-cv-04040-SOH Document 28 Filed 07/25/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

toto. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) is hereby DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:23-cv-04040-SOH Document 28 Filed 07/25/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>