Baltrusch v. Simmons Prepared Foods

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:26-cv-05073-TLB Document15 ~ Filed 06/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETEVILLE DIVISION
CHARLIE BALTRUSCH PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:26-CV-5073
SIMMONS PREPARED FOODS DEFENDANT
ORDER

Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11) of the
Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. On June 23, 2026, Plaintiff Charlie Baltrusch filed Objections to the R&R (Doc.
13), which triggered this Court’s de novo review of the case.

Mr. Baltrusch sued his former employer, Simmons Prepared Foods, for violating
his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, as the R&R correctly explains,
a § 1983 claim is implausible because Simmons is not a state actor and Mr. Baltrusch
does not allege that Simmons acted under color of state law. The Magistrate Judge
considered whether Mr. Baltrusch perhaps intended to bring a different federal claim
against Simmons, but, given the facts, she concluded that no other federal law violation
was obvious—including a cause of action under the Family and Medical Leave Act. For
these reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the Complaint.

Mr. Baltrusch explains in his Objections that he sued Simmons under § 1983
because he thought it was the only cause of action available to him. He does not point to
any other plausible federal claim. Instead he says he intends to consult a lawyer once he
is released from prison and requests that the Court refrain from dismissing the Complaint

in the meantime. The Court declines Mr. Baltrusch’s request but advises him that his case

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 5:26-cv-05073-TLB Document15 ~ Filed 06/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

is being dismissed “without prejudice,” which means the Court is not ruling on the merits,
and if he later finds he can make out a plausible violation of law, he may file a new
complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objections are OVERRULED and the R&R
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
upon preservice screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT 1S SO ORDERED on this fp? day of Juneg2026.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE