Maskell v. Wagnon

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ADAM MASKELL 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No.1:24-cv-01024-SOH-BAB
CINDY WAGNON
Court Clerk, Bradley County 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, Adam Maskell, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is a Motion to Reopen Case filed by Plaintiff. ECF No. 18. Defendant, Cindy
Wagnon, has filed a Response in opposition. ECF No. 20. On April 2, 2025, the Honorable Susan
O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred the instant motion to the undersigned for the
purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 21.
I. 	BACKROUND
Plaintiff’s claims in this action arose from alleged difficulties he had with obtaining
documents from Defendant for use in ongoing litigation involving Plaintiff. He filed his Complaint
on March 29, 2024. ECF No. 1. He filed a Supplement to the Complaint on April 17, 2024. ECF
No. 5. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on May 28, 2024. ECF No. 10. On August 15,
2024, the Court entered an Initial Scheduling Order directing the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f)
Conference on or before 9/11/2024. The order also set discovery and motions for summary
judgment deadlines, with a trial date of July 7, 2025. ECF No. 11.
On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Case. ECF No. 13. In this Motion,
Plaintiff asked the Court to dismiss the case because the parties had resolved many of the issues
relating to the case and “in the interest of justice this lawsuit needs to be dismissed”. ECF No. 13.
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 22 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendant filed a Response on August 26, 2024, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF
No. 14. 	On October 15, 2024, Judge Hickey adopted the Report and Recommendation of the
undersigned (ECF No. 15) and dismissed this case without prejudice. ECF No. 17.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reopen Case on March 4, 2025. He states in part:
Defendant Court Clerk Cindy Wagnon has violated the Mutual Party Agreement, as
she is refusing and not turning over the Certified Record so Plaintiff Adam Maskell can
appeal his Sentencing Order and matter of Recusal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
And every issue raised in the Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal dated 10-4-24, which was
filed for the record at the Bradley County Circuit Court on 10-7-24. As the last page of
the Notice of Appeal (Pro Se) in the last paragraph clearly reads “Respectfully the
Defendant requests the Court Clerk furnish the Arkansas Court of Appeals with the
Certified Record in regards to all these aforementioned issues raised in the Notice of
Appeal.’ …
ECF No. 18, p. 2. Defendant objects to the motion because “Plaintiff makes new allegations of
events which occurred after the closing of the present case … If Plaintiff wishes to assert new
claims, he should be required to file a new case. ECF No. 20.
The Court agrees with Defendant’s contention that this case should not be reopened. As
Defendant points out, the claim against Defendant set forth in the instant Motion to Reopen Case
is based on a different set of facts than the original lawsuit filed back in March of 2024. Rather
than reopen this stale case, the Court finds Plaintiff may refile his claims in a new case should he
wish to do so. Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice from this approach and the Court will be able to
maintain its dockets in the most efficient manner.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (ECF
No. 18) be DENIED.
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 22 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 17th day of April 2025.
s/ Barry A. Bryant_____
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01024-SOH Document 22 Filed 04/17/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>