Sexton v. Griffith et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DUSTIN ANDREW SEXTON 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 2:23-CV-2113
SERGEANT JOHN GRIFFITH
and JAIL ADMINISTRATOR JACOB SHOOK
(Both of Johnson County Detention Center) 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 60)
of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Arkansas, submitted in this case on January 24, 2025, regarding Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50). Plaintiff Dustin Andrew Sexton filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motion. See Docs. 57 & 58. The Magistrate Judge considered the
undisputed evidence of record and the parties’ arguments before recommending that the
Motion be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice. On February 6, 2025, Mr.
Sexton filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 61), which triggered this Court’s de novo review
of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Mr. Sexton was booked into the Johnson County Jail on November 26, 2022, for
possession of methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine with purpose to deliver. On August
25, 2023, a female acquaintance of Mr. Sexton’s arrived at the jail to pay his bond.
Defendants explained to her that Mr. Sexton could not leave—even if she paid the bond—
because the Arkansas Department of Correction had a hold on him, as did Pope County.
Sometime 	thereafter, 	Defendants 	determined 	that 	the 	Arkansas 	Department 	of
Correction’s hold had been released—but Pope County’s hold remained in place. Mr.
Case 2:23-cv-02113-TLB Document 62 Filed 02/19/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Sexton was transferred from Johnson County to Pope County to face criminal charges,
and he ultimately pleaded guilty to charges in both counties. As Mr. Sexton did not present
any evidence to counter the above facts, the Magistrate Judge determined that his
constitutional rights were not violated when Defendants refused to release him on bond.
In his objections, Mr. Sexton fails to acknowledge the undisputed facts of record
and the legal reasoning in the R&R. He insists that Defendants had a grudge against him
and believes he should have been allowed to bond out. See Doc. 61, p. 5. None of his
objections are meritorious, and they are OVERRULED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is GRANTED. The case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 19th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-02113-TLB Document 62 Filed 02/19/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>