Opinion
4:22-cv-00893-KGB
11-19-2024
RICO BENTON PLAINTIFF v. DEXTER PAYNE, Director, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Kristine G. Baker Chief United States District Judge
Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff Rico Benton filed objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 5). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, Mr. Benton's objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Recommended Disposition in its entirety as its own (Dkt. No. 4).
In his Recommended Disposition, Judge Ray screened Mr. Benton's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Dkt. No. 4). Judge Ray found that Mr. Benton's breach of contract and false advertising claims against defendants Keefe Commissary Network (“KCN”) and the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”) were “purely matters of state law,” and insufficient to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Id., at 2-3). Judge Ray therefore recommended that Mr. Benton's claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Id.).
The Court writes to address Mr. Benton's objections (Dkt. No. 5). In his objections, Mr. Benton restates the same allegations from his complaint related to the “Amp'd Maxx MP4 player” purchased from KCN through ADC's commissary system (Id.). As Judge Ray correctly noted, “a violation of state law, without more, does not state a claim under the federal Constitution or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Dkt. No. 4, at 3 (quoting Bagley v. Rogerson, 5 F.3d 325, 328 (8th Cir. 1993)). Upon a de novo review of the record, including the Recommendations, the Court finds that Mr. Benton's objections break no new ground and fail to rebut Judge Ray's findings.
The Court adopts the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 4). It is therefore ordered that:
1. Mr. Benton's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 2).
2. The Court recommends that, in the future, this dismissal be considered a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED