Link et al v. Arkansas Department of Human Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MARY LINK and THOMAS LINK 	PLAINTIFFS
v. 	Case No. 4:24-cv-4063
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable Barry A.
Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 	ECF No. 25.
Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) be granted.
Plaintiffs have responded with objections. ECF Nos. 26, 28. The Court finds the matter ripe for
consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, representing themselves in this matter, initiated this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiffs make claims against the Arkansas Department of Human
Services (“DHS”) and three DHS employees, Jonathan Scott, Alexis Lampkins, and Peter
Ferrara, individually and in their official capacities. 	The basis of this lawsuit stems from the
removal of Plaintiff’s three children from their home by DHS and the state court’s adjudication
of the children dependent-neglected. 	Plaintiffs’ children were removed from their home
pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas. 	Plaintiffs separately
appealed the removal order to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which affirmed the order finding
the children dependent-neglected. 	See Link v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 680 S.W.3d 724 (Ark.
App. 2023).
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege there was no evidence the children had been
neglected or abused; that there were more reasonable and less intrusive means to secure the
children’s safety without removing the children from the home; and that Defendants “continue to
hold jurisdiction over the children,” depriving the family of a familial relationship without just
cause. ECF No. 3. The complaint expressly seeks to overturn the state trial court’s decision and
the Arkansas Court of Appeals’ affirmance of that decision.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear pre- and post-trial matters and to
submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Within fourteen days of receipt of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
“a 	party 	may 	serve 	and 	file 	specific 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord Local Rule 72.2(VII)(C). After conducting
an appropriate review of the report and recommendation, the Court may then “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . .
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[T]he specific standard of review depends, in the first instance, upon whether or not a
party has objected to portions of the report and recommendation.” 	Anderson v. Evangelical
Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1015 (N.D. Iowa 2018). 	Generally,
“objections must be timely and specific” to trigger de novo review. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d
356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990). 	However, the Court may, in its discretion, conduct a de novo
review of any issue in a report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985).
The Court must apply a liberal construction when determining whether pro se objections are
specific. Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995).
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. DISCUSSION
Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) be granted
because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. 	The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, except for habeas corpus
petitions, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court
judgments and state court proceedings. See Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 2005).
Specifically, the doctrine “bars federal courts from hearing cases brought by the losing parties in
state court proceedings alleging ‘injury caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review
and rejection of that judgment.’” Id. at 931 (quoting Exxon v. Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)). 	“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars both straightforward and
indirect attempts by a plaintiff to undermine state court decisions.” 	Prince v. Ark. Bd. of
Exam’rs in Psychology, 380 F.3d 337, 340 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted).
This is exactly the situation we have in the instant case. Plaintiffs are the losing parties in
state court proceedings involving the removal of their children from their home and the state
court’s adjudication of the children dependent-neglected. 	The relief Plaintiff seeks would as a
practical matter undermine the state court’s order. In their objections, Plaintiffs assert that their
claims are based on “constitutional violations that are separate and distinct from the state court
judgment.” 	ECF No. 26, p. 2. 	However, Plaintiff’s attempt to recast their state court loss as
deprivations of constitutional rights does not overcome the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 	See
Prince, 380 F.3d at 340 (explaining that once a party has litigated in state court, he cannot
circumvent Rooker-Feldman by recasting his lawsuit as a § 1983 action). 	Plaintiffs’ alleged
injuries arise from, and are inseparable from, the outcome of the state court proceedings. Thus,
the Court agrees with Judge Bryant’s determination that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
be granted because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), and for
the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have offered neither fact nor law
which would cause the Court to deviate from Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 26) and adopts the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25) in toto. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
1In their objections, Plaintiffs request leave to amend their complaint to “omit any statements that could be
construed as an invitation to review or reject the state court judgment.” ECF No. 26, p. 3. The Court finds that the
proposed amendments to the complaint (ECF No. 28) would be futile because they do not cure the pleading and
legal deficiencies discussed in this motion. 	The clams in the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Plaintiffs injuries arise from, and are inseparable from, the outcome of
the state court proceedings. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint is DENIED.
Case 4:24-cv-04063-SOH Document 35 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>