Opinion

Whitson v. Felts

Court
District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Filed
Dec 19, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.2%

specific objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are reviewed de novo

How later courts described this case

  • specific objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are reviewed de novo

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

PENNY JUANITA WHITSON

As next of kin of Rory Allen Gregory,

deceased PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06079

JOHN FELTS, Director,

Arkansas Parole Board, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United

States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 20. Judge Ford recommends that

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff, an unpardoned felon,

cannot be appointed as the administrator of her brother’s estate and she has failed to address any issues

barring this case from moving forward following two extensions of time granted by the Court (ECF Nos.

10, 17). Plaintiff filed objections. ECF No. 21. However, Plaintiff’s objections do not effectively address

any aspect of Judge Ford’s analysis or provide an argument as to why she should be able to continue to

pursue this case. Accordingly, the Court reviews the instant Report and Recommendation for clear error

instead of conducting de novo review. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (specific

objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are

reviewed de novo); and see 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1).

Upon review, finding that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Ford’s

reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) in toto. Plaintiff’s

Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 22) is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of December, 2023.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey

Susan O. Hickey

Chief United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.