The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CE’DRICK J. BROWN PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 6:24-cv-06017
MAJOR FREDRICK OTTS;
SERGEANT B. MORGAN;
and CORPORAL SHANLEVER DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed April 4, 2025, by the
Honorable Christy D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. (ECF No. 79). Plaintiff Ce’drick J. Brown (“Plaintiff”) has objected. (ECF No. 82).
The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
In the R&R, Judge Comstock recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 33) be denied; (2) Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 39) be denied; (3) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) be granted; and
(4) this matter be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 79).
Plaintiff has timely objected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). (ECF No. 82). However,
Plaintiff’s objection fails to articulate a clear argument critical of Judge Comstock’s R&R and
instead reiterates many of the factual allegations underlying his claims. The Court is
unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s attempts to reiterate the same arguments to the Court that he did to
Judge Comstock. See Munt v. Larson, No. 15-CV-0582 SRN/SER, 2015 WL 5673108, at *7 (D.
Minn. Sept. 23, 2015) (“Simply restating arguments and facts already presented to the Magistrate
Judge does not constitute a viable objection to a report and recommendation.”).
Upon de novo review, the Court hereby adopts the R&R (ECF No. 79) in toto.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s first Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) is
DENIED and Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
Further, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 62) should be
and hereby is GRANTED. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s case should be and hereby
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of June, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
1The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 81), Motion to Compel/Motion to Intervene (ECF
No. 83), and Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 84) should be and hereby are DENIED AS MOOT.