# JOHN ASHLEY RODRIGUES v. DAVID FREEZE; TERRY DARDEN; VICTOR ROSE; and DANIEL SIMMONS

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · August 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421979

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN ASHLEY RODRIGUES v. DAVID FREEZE; TERRY DARDEN; VICTOR ROSE; and DANIEL SIMMONS
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** August 18, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421979

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOHN ASHLEY RODRIGUES PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:25-cv-04100

DAVID FREEZE; TERRY DARDEN;
VICTOR ROSE; and DANIEL SIMMONS DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on June 24, 2026, by the
Honorable Spencer G. Singleton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. ECF No. 34. Judge Singleton recommends that the Court grant Defendant David
Freeze’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). Specifically, Judge Singleton recommends Plaintiff’s
malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims against Defendant Freeze be dismissed because Defendant Freeze is immune from
suit pursuant to prosecutorial immunity. ECF No. 34, at 11.
Defendants Terry Darden, Daniel Simmons,1 David Freeze, and Victor Rose filed a
response to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 36. Defendants state that they do not
object to the recommended dismissal of Defendant Freeze. Id. at 1. Rather, Defendants object to
the Report and Recommendation only to the extent it leaves unresolved the duplicative nature of
this action, failure on the part of Plaintiff to state a claim, and that Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity. Id. While Defendant Rose raised these three issues in his pending Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 23), Defendant Freeze’s Motion only addresses the issue of prosecutorial
immunity. The Court will address the unresolved issues when it rules on the remaining Motion to

1 The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to name Daniel Simmons as the John Doe Defendant. ECF No. 40.
Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not specific to this Report and
Recommendation and will review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Thompson
v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990) (instructing that objections must be timely and specific
to trigger de novo review); see also Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating

that the “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies to the portions of a magistrate’s report and
recommendation to which no objections have been made). Upon review, finding no clear error on
the face of the record and that Judge Singleton’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) in toto. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Freeze’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13). Defendant Freeze is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of August, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Senior United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11421979. Public record. Not legal advice.