Jason Shawn Pettit vs Justin Garner et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JASON SHAWN PETTIT 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-04059
SPECIAL AGENT JUSTIN GARNER;
SPECIAL AGENT GREG HARPER;
SPECIAL AGENT ADENDREA;
SPECIAL AGENT JOHN DOE;
PROSECUTOR JANA BRADFORD;
DEPUTY PROSECUTOR AARON BRASSEL;
and JUDGE BRIAN CHESHIRE 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed on October 9, 2025, by the
Honorable Spencer G. Singleton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. 	(ECF No. 11). 	Judge Singleton conducted a preservice screening of Plaintiff Jason
Shawn Pettit’s amended complaint and now recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim
One—that Defendants Cheshire, Bradford, and Brassel violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by
revoking his bond and holding him incarcerated—for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). Specifically, Judge Singleton finds
that Defendants Cheshire and Brassel enjoy judicial and prosecutorial immunity from suit, and that
Plaintiff failed to allege any facts against Defendant Bradford. Judge Singleton finds that Plaintiff
has sufficiently stated claims upon which relief may be granted for his Claims Two and Three
against the other Defendants.1
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object
1 Under Claim Two, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Harper, Garner, Adandrea, and Doe violated his constitutional
rights by illegally searching the house he was in and arresting him. Under Claim Three, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant
Walraven and Butler violated his constitutional rights by denying his medical care and providing unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. (ECF No. 1).
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 23 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
has passed. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the
record and that Judge Singleton’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 11) in toto. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Cheshire, Brassel, and Bradford are DISMISSED. 	The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate
Defendants Cheshire, Brassel, and Bradford from the docket. Plaintiff’s other claims remain.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04059-SOH Document 23 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>