Abadi v. WalMart, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
AARON ABADI 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:25-CV-5259
WALMART, INC. and
WALMART STORES EAST, LP 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On 	December 	30, 	2025, 	the 	Honorable 	Christy 	Comstock, 	United 	States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, performed an initial screening of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 8) finding that the case should be dismissed. On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff
filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 9), which triggered this Court’s de novo review of the
record.
Plaintiff’s first objection is that the R&R mischaracterized his prior litigation history.
He contends that “[t]hese distinctions matter at the screening stage” and that the R&R’s
incorrect “repeated framing of Plaintiff’s [prior] cases . . . obscures the core allegation
running through Plaintiff’s pleadings . . . .” (Doc. 9, p. 3). First, the Court finds the
Magistrate Judge’s summary of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits is accurate. Second, to the extent
Plaintiff is concerned that the preservice dismissal of the instant claims rests on the R&R’s
narrative summary of his prior cases, he is mistaken. The Court has undertaken a de
novo review of the instant claims.
Next, Plaintiff objects to the R&R’s finding that he failed to establish a basis for
diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims because the amount in controversy does
Case 5:25-cv-05259-TLB Document 10 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
not plausibly meet the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. Having reviewed these claims,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that they fail to state facts sufficient to
establish that the jurisdictional minimum has been met to a legal certainty.
Plaintiff also objects to the dismissal of his state law claims due to the expiration
of the relevant statute of limitations. He maintains that, if given a further opportunity to
plead, he could assert sufficient facts to justify tolling the three-year limitations period for
negligence under Arkansas law. First, the Court finds that the Complaint, as written, fails
to assert any facts that would indicate the statute of limitations should be tolled. Second,
as no federal claims survive preservice screening, there must be an independent basis
for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, and, as
previously stated, no independent basis exists.
Finally, Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge that his retaliation claims
under the Americans with Disabilities Act should be dismissed. Having reviewed the
claims, the Court finds that the R&R’s reasoning and conclusions are sound and are
therefore adopted in their entirety. See Doc. 8, pp. 5–8. As for Plaintiff’s observation that
the R&R did not thoroughly discuss each and every factual allegation he asserted in his
lengthy Complaint, see Doc. 9, ¶¶. 6–7, this objection is of no moment. The R&R’s factual
recitation was sufficient to explain why all claims should be dismissed on preservice
screening.
IT IS ORDERED that the Objections are OVERRULED and the R&R is ADOPTED
IN ITS ENTIRETY. The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on preservice
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for the reasons stated in the R&R.
Case 5:25-cv-05259-TLB Document 10 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 12th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05259-TLB Document 10 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>