Balentine v. Marshall et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
MARK LEE BALENTINE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:23-cv-6136
ORLANDO DOSIA; JAILER ZACH
MARSHALL; and SHERIFF JASON
WATSON 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Christy D.
Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 	ECF No. 6. 	Upon
preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Judge Comstock recommends that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Orlando Dosia be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently
allege that he is subject to 42 U.S.C § 1983 claims. Judge Comstock further recommends that Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants Zach Marshall and Jason Watson be permitted to proceed. Plaintiff filed a timely
objection (ECF No. 7), but it does not address any of Judge Comstock’s reasoning and is insufficiently
specific to require a de novo review of the R&R.0F
1 See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994)
(noting that a specific objection is necessary to require a de novo review of a magistrate’s recommendation).
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Comstock’s reasoning
is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 6) in toto. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Orlando
Dosia are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Zach
Marshall and Jason Watson may proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2024.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
1 Plaintiff simply provides a copy of his complaint and circles his general allegations. ECF No. 7, p. 3.
Case 6:23-cv-06136-SOH Document 8 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
<pageID>