Waller v. Owens et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ANTONIO JEROME WALLER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 1:24-cv-1085
SERGEANT DYLAN OWENS, Union County
Detention Center (“UCDC”); JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR PAUL KRUGELR, UCDC;
SHERIFF RICKY ROBERTS, Union County,
Arkansas; CAPTAIN LISA WORLEY, UCDC;
NURSE KASI SANFORD, Turn Key Health
Clinics, LLC 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry
A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 6. Upon
preservice screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), Judge
Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Separate Defendants Dylan
Owens and Kasi Sanford in their individual capacity for failure to provide medical care be allowed
to proceed. 	Judge Bryant further recommends that all remaining claims be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed a timely objection, but does not address the
reasoning of Judge Bryant’s R&R. ECF No. 9. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates his factual allegations
and references the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), which is
irrelevant to his § 1983 claims.0F
1 Therefore, the Court must only review the R&R for clear error.
See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that a specific objection is
1 The closest Plaintiff comes to making a substantive argument is asserting that his first two claims are made under
the Eighth Amendment instead of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Judge Bryant correctly notes that, as a
pretrial detainee, Plaintiff’s claims must be made pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. See Stearns v. Inmate Servs.
Corp., 957 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2020).
Case 1:24-cv-01085-SOH Document 20 Filed 03/25/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation instead of a review for
clear error).
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s
reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 6) in toto. Plaintiff’s denial of medical
care claims against Defendants Dylan Owens and Kasi Sanford in their individual capacity may
proceed. All other claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-01085-SOH Document 20 Filed 03/25/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>