Hubbard v. Witherington et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
LUCAS MICHAEL HUBBARD 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:24-cv-6151
KRISTY WITHERINGTON,
Investigator, Garland County DHS, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed August 22, 2025, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.0F
1
ECF No. 90. Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF
Nos. 19, 24, and 53)1F
2 be denied. Plaintiff has responded with objections. ECF No. 92. The Court
finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant. 	Plaintiff seeks
damages related to a child custody decision and divorce proceedings in Louisiana. He claims that
he was denied access to his minor child and lost his home because of the action of a private attorney
in Louisiana and orders entered by a Louisiana state court. 	Plaintiff moves the Court for a
preliminary injunction to immediately force the return of his minor child to him immediately, to
sanction Separate Defendant Thomas Parks for threatening Plaintiff, and to order Separate
Defendant Kristy Weatherington to have no contact with Plaintiff. ECF No. 53, p. 5.
1Magistrate Judge Barry A. Bryant is now retired.
2Defendant has filed three Motions for Preliminary Injunction. ECF Nos. 19, 24, and 53. The first two motions (ECF
Nos. 19, 24) seek the same relief. In the third motion (ECF No. 53), the only difference is the addition of Danny Clark
and Carrie Clark as Defendants. As Judge Bryant did in the Report and Recommendation, the Court will treat the
most recently filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 53) as the live motion in this instance.
Case 6:24-cv-06151-SOH-SGS Document 98 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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).
III. DISCUSSION
Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
19, 24, and 53) be denied as moot because all claims in the underlying amended complaint have
been dismissed. 	The Court agrees with this recommendation. 	The purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to “preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an
opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.” 	Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.
Case 6:24-cv-06151-SOH-SGS Document 98 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
1994). In the instant case, all claims in the amended complaint (ECF No. 61) have been heard on
the merits and dismissed by the Court. ECF Nos. 74, 94, and 97. Thus, a preliminary injunction
at this stage of the case would be moot. Notably, Plaintiff’s objections do not address the issue of
mootness. Because all claims in the amended complaint (ECF No. 61) have been dismissed, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 19, 24, and 53) should
be denied as moot.
Even if the Motions for Preliminary Injunction were not moot, the motions would be denied
on substantive grounds. The Court agrees with Judge Bryant’s reasoning and determination that
Plaintiff has not demonstrated he would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction or that he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his case. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d
109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (instructing Courts to consider the probability of success on the merits
and the threat of irreparable harm, among other factors, when deciding a motion for preliminary
injunction). Plaintiff disagrees with this determination regarding the merits of his motion, but the
Court finds no error in Judge Bryant’s reasoning. In fact, the Court has already determined that
Plaintiff’s claims are without merit and thus unsuccessful. ECF Nos. 74, 94, and 97.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 90) in
toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 19, 24, and 53) are
DENIED AS MOOT.
Because all claims in this lawsuit have now been dismissed, the Court finds that the
following motions should also be DENIED AS MOOT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification; (ECF
No. 75); Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 76, 78); Plaintiff’s Motion to Set
Trial Date (ECF No. 86); and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Christopher Savage
Case 6:24-cv-06151-SOH-SGS Document 98 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(ECF No. 88).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-06151-SOH-SGS Document 98 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>