Ralston v. Cantrell

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JONATHAN WAYNE RALSTON 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5076
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL,
Washington County, Arkansas;
DR. ROBERT KARAS, Karas Correctional Health (KCH);
DUSTIN SANDERS, KCH;
JOHN OR JANE DOE STAFF MEMBERS, KCH;
JORDAN PREVERAS, KCH;
JACOB SMOTHERS, KCH;
and NURSE KELLY HINELY, KCH 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 49) filed on
March 19, 2025, by the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for
the Western District of Arkansas. She recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
33) filed by Separate Defendants Karas, Sanders, Preveras, Smothers, Hinely, and John
or Jane Doe Staff Members (collectively, “Medical Defendants”). On today’s date, April 4,
2025, Plaintiff Jonathan Wayne Ralston filed Objections (Doc. 50) to the R&R. The Court
has now reviewed the record de novo as to all proposed findings and recommendations
and is prepared to rule.
As the R&R notes, on October 4, 2024, a Text-Only Order (Doc. 29) directed
Ralston to file an amended complaint that “affirmatively link[ed] the conduct of each
named Defendant with the specific injury [Ralson] suffered.” He was warned that if he
failed to do this, “the allegations against that Defendant [would] be dismissed for failure
to state a claim.” Id. Despite this warning, however, when Ralston filed his Amended
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 51 Filed 04/04/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Complaint (Doc. 30), he did not allege how each separate Medical Defendant personally
violated his federal constitutional rights. Accordingly, the R&R recommends granting the
Medical Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because no plausible individual liability claims are
stated, and to the extent Ralston seeks to hold Defendant Karas liable for the conduct of
all his staff, vicarious liability is inapplicable to § 1983 cases.
Having reviewed Ralston’s Objections to the R&R, the Court finds that they fail to
engage with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Instead, Ralston generally objects that
“material 	facts/evidence” 	exists 	to 	show 	“that 	the 	defendants 	[were] 	delabertly
indefferance [sic] to provide medical treatment” for his injured hand and hip, which
continue to trouble him to this day. (Doc. 50, p. 1). Importantly, Ralston has still failed in
these Objections to identify what each Medical Defendant did or did not do with respect
to his medical care that violated his constitutional rights. The Motion to Dismiss will
therefore be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that Ralston’s Objections (Doc. 50) are OVERRULED, and the
R&R (Doc. 49) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) filed by
Separate Defendants Karas, Sanders, Preveras, Smothers, Hinely, and the John or Jane
Doe Staff Members is GRANTED, and each of them is TERMINATED as a party to this
action.
The remaining claim against Separate Defendant Sheriff Cantrell remains referred.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 4th day of April, 2025.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks___________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05076-TLB Document 51 Filed 04/04/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>