Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_09-cv-00065/USCOURTS-ared-1_09-cv-00065-1/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
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
 

BATESVILLE DIVISION
 

FRANCES RENEE MILLERIPERRY,
 

ADC#708998 PLAINTIFF
 

v. 1:09CV00065BSMlHLJ 

DONALD ANDERSON, et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 

INSTRUCTIONS
 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court 

Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis 

for the objection. Ifthe objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and 

the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy ofyour objections must 

be received in the office ofthe United States District Court Clerk no later than eleven (11) 

days from the date ofthe findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the 

opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver ofthe right to appeal 

questions of fact. 

Ifyou are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, 

or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you 

must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

1
 

Case 1:09-cv-00065-JTK Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 4
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

2.	 Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District
 

Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the
 

hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
 

3.	 The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the
 

hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of
 

proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or
 

other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at
 

the hearing before the District Judge.
 

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge. 

Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: 

Clerk, United States District Court
 

Eastern District ofArkansas
 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
 

DISPOSITION 

By Order dated January 12,2010 (DE #5), this Court granted plaintiffs application 

to proceed in forma pauperis in this lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, 

finding plaintiffs complaint too vague and conclusory to enable the Court to determine 

whether it was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, the Court directed plaintiffto 

amend his complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint (DE #7). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915A(b)(l),(2), the Court is required to 

screen complaints seeking reliefagainst an officer-or employee ofa governmental entity, and 

2
 

Case 1:09-cv-00065-JTK Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 4
must dismiss a complaint ifthe claims raised are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 

claim or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. An action is 

frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ifit 

does not plead "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, _, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). 

In reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915A(b)(2), the Court must give the 

complaint the benefit ofa liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

The court must also weigh all factual allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts 

alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 

416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

In her original complaint, plaintiff named several individuals as defendants in the 

caption, but failed to include specific allegations against most of those individuals in the 

body of her complaint. In the Court's January 12,2010 Order, the Court directed plaintiff 

to more clearly state her allegations, including the name of each individual personally 

involved, how that individual was involved and how that individual violated plaintiffs 

constitutional rights. In her amended complaint, however, plaintiffagain fails to include any 

allegations against defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and Marry 

MatthewslDecker. Therefore, the Court finds thatthese defendants should be dismissed from 

plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, 

3 

Case 1:09-cv-00065-JTK Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 4
____

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 

and Mary MatthewslDecker are DISMISSED from plaintiffs complaint, for failure to state 

a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofFebruary, 2010. 

4 

Case 1:09-cv-00065-JTK Document 9 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 4