Edwards, Jr. v. Martin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS, JR. 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:25-CV-5056
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRENTON MARTIN,
Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TRINTON EVANS, WCDC;
CORPORAL TOM MULVANEY, WCDC;
SERGEANT ALEXIS BARTHOLOMEW;
and JAY CANTRELL 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On April 21, 2025, the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate
Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, performed an initial screening of Plaintiff
Christopher Edwards, Jr.’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a
Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R”) 	(Doc. 	10). 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Comstock
recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
plausible claim for relief. Mr. Edwards’s first claim alleges that Defendant Trenton Martin
verbally threatened Mr. Edwards and that Defendant Trinton Evans was aware of the
threats but did nothing to intervene. The second claim is that Defendant Tom Mulvaney
failed to timely respond to Mr. Edwards’s inquiries submitted on the WCDC kiosk
system, did not coordinate a notary to assist with forms, and did not grant him use of the
law library. The third and final claim is that Defendant Sgt. Alexis Bartholomew knew
about the above allegations but did nothing to help Mr. Edwards.
On May 1, Mr. Edwards filed Objections (Doc. 12) to the R&R. The Court has
therefore conducted a de novo review of the record, paying particular attention to those
areas of the R&R that have drawn objection. The Objections focus on Mr. Edwards’s
Case 5:25-cv-05056-TLB Document 13 Filed 05/09/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
claim that Defendant Martin verbally threatened him, which Mr. Edwards insists could
have led to physical harm. The R&R explains why these allegations fail to state a claim
of constitutional dimension, and the Court agrees. Further, Mr. Edwards admits in the
Objections that Defendant Martin never touched him, never moved him to an area
where he would “have to fight and catch another charge,” and never charged him with a
new crime. See id. at p. 2. Next, Mr. Edwards maintains that Defendant Martin blocked
him from “order[ing] commissary” and would not “let outside people order [Mr. Edwards]
care packages or phone time.” Id. Even if these allegations are true, they also fail to
state a claim of constitutional dimension, since inmates have no constitutional right to
commissary or care packages. See Doc. 10, p. 5 n.1. Finally, Mr. Edwards objects that
Defendant Martin’s treatment of him was fueled by racism; however, as the R&R
explained, there are no facts in the Complaint—save conclusory ones—to support this
claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objections are OVERRULED and the
R&R 	(Doc. 	10) 	is 	ADOPTED 	IN 	ITS 	ENTIRETY. 	The 	Complaint 	is 	DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, and Plaintiff is warned that, in the
future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial
consideration and to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 9th day of May, 2025.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05056-TLB Document 13 Filed 05/09/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>