Dudley v. Freedman et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
KARANYA MARQUIS
DUDLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:24-cv-04088
AMY FREEDMAN,
Prosecuting Attorney;
MATT STEPHENS,
Public Defender;
JUDGE C. JONES, Miller
County District Court (“MCDC”);
JUDGE B HALTON, MCDC;
JUDGE W. AUTREY, MCDC;
STATE OF ARKANSAS; and
MILLER COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed December 18, 2024,
by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. 	(ECF No. 22). 	Plaintiff Karanya Marquis Dudley (“Plaintiff”) has objected. 	(ECF
No. 23). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
In the R&R, Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6)
be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (ECF No. 22). More specifically, Judge Bryant
recommends: (1) that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Judge C. Jones, Judge B. Halton, and
Judge W. Autrey be dismissed because they are protected by judicial immunity; (2) that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Amy Freedman be dismissed because she is immune from
suit as a prosecutor for Miller County, Arkansas; (3) that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 24 Filed 05/06/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Matt Stephens be dismissed because his conduct as counsel in representing Plaintiff did not
create a colorable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation; (4) that Plaintiff’s claims against the State of
Arkansas be dismissed because the State of Arkansas is entitled to sovereign immunity and no
exception applies; (5) that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Miller County District Court be
dismissed because a court is not a proper defendant in a Section 1983 case and the events
underlying the instant lawsuit took place in Miller County Circuit Court, not Miller County
District Court; and (6) that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against all Defendants be dismissed
because Plaintiff failed to allege a policy, procedure, or custom of Miller County that caused her
complaints. (ECF No. 22, at 4-7).
Plaintiff has timely objected. 	(ECF No. 23). 	However, Plaintiff’s objection fails to
articulate a clear argument critical of Judge Bryant’s R&R and instead reiterates many of the
factual allegations underlying her claims.
Upon de novo review, the Court hereby adopts the R&R (ECF No. 22) in toto.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) should be and
hereby is GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of May, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04088-SOH Document 24 Filed 05/06/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>