Opinion
4:22-cv-4114
04-24-2023
THOMAS DEREK THORNTON PLAINTIFF v. WARDEN WALKER, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, CHIEF, DISTRICT JUDGE
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. 8. Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff's claims One and Three be dismissed without prejudice and recommends that Plaintiff's claims Two and Four be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 9. However, Plaintiff's objection does not specifically address any aspect of Judge Bryant's analysis or reasoning. Instead, Plaintiff simply reiterates the factual allegations underlying his complaint and asserts that Defendants have clearly violated his rights. 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) (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 no clear error from the face of the record and that Judge Bryant's conclusion is sound, the Court adopts the instant Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) in toto. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED, with Claims One and Three being DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Claims Two and Four being DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED,