Thomas v. Wal-Mart Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
NOEL VINCENT THOMAS 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:25-CV-5222
WALMART, INC.; KEVIN BOLEN;
LISSET CHAO; JOHNATHAN BAKER;
RUBENSTEIN LAW FIRM; IRWIN AST LAW FIRM;
AND NICHOLE GARCIA 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
On January 6, 2026, the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate
Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, performed an initial screening of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 9), finding that nearly all of Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure
to state a claim but that his claim of negligence against Separate Defendant Walmart, Inc.
should be permitted to proceed. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 27-page Objection
to the R&R (Doc. 10), which triggered a de novo review of the record.
Plaintiff begins his Objection by insulting the Magistrate Judge and accusing her
of filing “deceptive orders” and being “racially motivated” in her decision-making. Id. at p.
3. Such allegations are unsupported and require no further discussion here. Next, Plaintiff
disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that all claims against Lisset
Chao, a Walmart employee, be dismissed. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that the Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations of wrongdoing of any kind
against Ms. Chao and therefore fails to state any plausible claim against her. Plaintiff also
objects to the dismissal of separate Defendants Kevin Bolen and Johnathan Baker, who
Case 5:25-cv-05222-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
are Walmart claims adjusters. Plaintiff restates his allegations of wrongdoing against
these Defendants from the Amended Complaint—but the Court is unpersuaded. These
facts, assumed as true, do not state plausible claims of negligence or conspiracy against
either Bolen or Baker. In addition, Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of Separate Defendants
Rubenstein Law Firm, Irwin Ast Law Firm, and paralegal Nichole Garcia, all of whom are
Florida citizens. However, the Magistrate Judge is correct that no civil conspiracy claims
are plausibly stated against any of these Defendants, and there is no basis for the Court
to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over them. Lastly, Plaintiff objects to the
dismissal of his fraud claims against Walmart, Bolen, and Baker; however, once again,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Amended Complaint states a
plausible claim for fraud. The Objection is OVERRULED and the R&R is ADOPTED IN
FULL.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
• 	Plaintiff’s claims of civil conspiracy, fraud, and race discrimination against
Walmart, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a
claim;
• 	Plaintiff’s claims against Kevin Bolen, Johnathan Baker, and Lisset Chao
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim;
• 	Plaintiff’s claims against Rubenstein Law Firm, Irwin Ast Law Firm, and
Nichole Garcia are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state
a claim and for lack of jurisdiction; and
• 	Plaintiff is permitted to proceed against Walmart, Inc. for his claim of
negligence arising from the slip-and-fall incident on December 16, 2023, at
Walmart’s store located at 8220 N. Dale Mabry Highway in Tampa, Florida;
Plaintiff is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint to concisely plead
a negligence claim against Walmart; once such amended pleading is filed,
the Clerk of Court is to REFER IT to the Magistrate Judge to verify
compliance with this Order and to direct the issuance of a summons and
service.
Case 5:25-cv-05222-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 30th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-05222-TLB Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>