The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOE RUDY PORTER PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:23-cv-04049
CODY BELLAMY;
DETECTIVE DAKOTA EASLEY;
LIEUTENANT ED CHATTAWAY DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed June 1, 2023, by the Honorable
Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 10). The Court
finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint. (ECF No. 1). In his Complaint,
Plaintiff asserts four claims relating to his October 7, 2022 arrest at Super Valu Foods in Texarkana,
Arkansas. Plaintiff alleges that on September 7, 2022, Defendant Cody Bellamy accused him of shop
lifting. (ECF No. 1, at 4). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Detective Dakota Easley tampered with
the evidence. (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff claims that Defendant Ed Chattaway “signed an Affidavit
stating that he was the person that did the copying and making of the Electronic Surveillance Tapes,
therefore, he destroyed evidence that could have prevented [Plaintiff] from the hardships of False
Imprisonment.” (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff alleges that Easley provided false reports and never
investigated the charges against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff claims that Chattaway
doctored the Super Valu Foods’ surveillance tapes in order to justify why the date and time stamps
were incorrect. (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff claims that Easley showed total disregard for the fairness
and impartiality that his position requires and that he assisted in sending an innocent black man to
prison without affording Plaintiff the equal protections of law. (ECF No. 1, at 10). Finally, Plaintiff
alleges that Easley showed biasness when he failed to investigate the matter because the alleged
suspect was a black male in a predominantly black neighborhood. (ECF No. 1, at 10).
Plaintiff’s claims are against Defendants in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff
brings a Fifth and Eighth Amendment unlawful tampering with evidence claim against all Defendants
in both their individual and official capacities (Claim 1). Plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment
unlawful imprisonment claim against all Defendants in both their individual and official capacities
(Claim 2). Plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment false report claim against all Defendants in both
their individual and official capacities (Claim 3). Plaintiff brings an Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment Equal Protection claim against Defendants Bellamy and Easley in both their individual
and official capacities (Claim 4).
On June 1, 2023, Judge Ford issued his Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 10). In the
Report and Recommendation, Judge Ford finds the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint insufficient to
support a plausible cause of action for any of the four official capacity claims. (ECF 10, at 8). Judge
Ford finds the allegations insufficient to support an Equal Protection violation of the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 10, at 9). Judge Ford did, however, find sufficient facts that
would allow Plaintiff’s Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3, regarding the tampering of evidence and the
making of false reports, to proceed against Defendants in their individual capacities. (ECF No. 10, at
9).
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Judge Ford’s Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 13). Plaintiff objects to Judge Ford’s finding that Plaintiff “failed to state an Official
Capacity claim against Defendants Dakota Easley and Lt. Ed Chattaway.” (ECF No. 13, at 1).
Plaintiff again argues that Easley acted in his official capacity when he omitted statements and
requests made by Plaintiff during interviews. (ECF No. 13, at 2). He claims that Chattaway acted
within his official capacity when he signed an affidavit acknowledging he oversaw production of
video surveillance. (ECF No. 13, at 2). Plaintiff then states that Easley and Chattaway acted in their
official capacities when they assisted with the tampering of evidence against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 13,
at 3). Plaintiff provides no specific objection to Judge Ford’s findings on the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment claim. (ECF No. 13, at 3).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff has timely filed an objection to Judge Ford’s Report and Recommendation. When
reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, “the 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). 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. 1990). A “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies to the portions of a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which no objections have been made. See Grinder
v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note,
subd. (b) (instructing a reviewing court to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record”). Giving Plaintiff’s timely objections a liberal construction, the Court finds only the official
capacity claims warrant a de novo review. The Court will review Plaintiff’s individual capacity
claims for clear error only.
III. DISCUSSION
Upon review of the case and for the reasons stated below, the Court reaches the same
conclusion as Judge Ford: Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3 should proceed against Defendants in the
individual capacity only; and Claim 4 should be dismissed against Defendants in both the official and
individual capacity.
A. Official Capacity
Judge Ford finds that Plaintiff fails to state an official capacity claim on Claim 1, Claim 2,
Claim 3, and Claim 4. The Court agrees. Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a
suit against the employing governmental entity.” Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254,
1257 (8th Cir. 2010). “Claims against individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims
against the entity for which they work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity
violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity
itself.” Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims are treated as claims against the City of Texarkana.
See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir. 2010). To establish a municipal defendant’s liability
under Section 1983, a “plaintiff must show that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant to
an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814,
817 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not point to a constitutional violation that
was committed by Defendants pursuant to an official custom, policy, or practice of the City of
Texarkana. In his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff points to actions taken by
Defendants, such as the fact Defendants went against their training, omitted statements made by
Plaintiff, and tampered with evidence. However, he fails to point to a custom, policy, or practice of
the City of Texarkana and only repeats what he said in the complaint regarding his official capacity
claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s official capacity claims in Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 4
fail as matter of law.
B. Individual Capacity
Plaintiff’s objections to the Equal Protection claim are not specific enough to trigger de novo
review, and a clear-error standard of review therefore applies. Judge Ford finds that Plaintiff fails to
state an individual capacity claim in Claim 4. The Court agrees. Judge Ford finds that Plaintiff fails
to provide sufficient facts in his Complaint to state a viable Eighth and Fourteenth claim against
Defendants Bellamy and Easley because he does not provide facts showing that a similarly situated
person received different treatment. Plaintiff provides no additional facts in his objection that would
challenge this finding. Being well and sufficiently advised, and finding no clear error on the face of
the record, the Court adopts this portion of Judge Ford’s Report and Recommendation in toto.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has offered neither fact nor law
which justifies the Court departing from the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court
overrules Plaintiff’s objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
10). Plaintiff’s Claim 1, Claim 2, Claim 3, and Claim 4 against Defendants in their official capacities
are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Claim 4 against all Defendants in their individual capacities is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff’s
Claim 1, Claim 2, and Claim 3 may proceed against Defendant Bellamy, Defendant Easley, and
Defendant Chattaway in their individual capacities only.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of July, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge