Culberson v. El Dorado Police Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
MELTON CULBERSON 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-1085
OFFICER ANDREW REYNOLDS; OFFICER
HOUSTON BRADSHAW; EL DORADO
POLICE DEPARTMENT; and CITY OF
EL DORADO 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Mark E.
Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 89. Judge Ford
Recommends that Separate Defendants Andrew Reynolds and Houston Bradshaw’s Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 86) be granted because Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim. 	Plaintiff submitted a
timely objection to the R&R. ECF No. 97. However, even a liberal construction of Plaintiff’s objection
does not reveal a coherent attack on Judge Ford’s reasoning and determination that Plaintiff failed to
state his claims.0F
1 Thus, the Court need only review the R&R for clear error. See Thompson v. Nix, 897
F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990).
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s reasoning
is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 89) in toto. Accordingly, Separate Defendants Andrew
Reynolds and Houston Bradshaw’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 86) is hereby GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against Separate Defendants Andrew Reynolds and Houston Bradshaw are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
1 Plaintiff has filed a series of Supplements to his initial objection that do nothing to correct the lack of a specific
objection to Judge Ford’s analysis. ECF Nos. 99, 101, 104, 114, & 115.
Case 1:25-cv-01085-SOH Document 122 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
<pageID>