OConnor v. Helder et al, No. 5:2021cv05083 - Document 11 (W.D. Ark. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion to Object to Magistrate Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on June 16, 2021. (tg)

Download PDF
OConnor v. Helder et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OCONNOR 91838 v. PLAINTIFF No. 5:21-CV-05083 SHERIFF TIM HELDER, et al. DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff OConnor 91838, also identified on the docket and in the records of various courts and the Washington County Detention Center as Casey OConnor, James Casey O’Connor, and James Casey OConnor, filed a motion (Doc. 10) requesting various relief. Plaintiff objects to the order (Doc. 3) of the Magistrate Judge directing the complaint be provisionally filed while Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status is determined and severing from this case Plaintiff’s claims against Texas Defendants over whom this Court has no personal jurisdiction. There is no basis for objection to this order, and the Magistrate Judge’s order stands. Plaintiff objects to the order (Doc. 8) of the Magistrate Judge directing Plaintiff to supplement his complaint on a form approved by this Court. Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed on an approved form, and to this extent the Magistrate Judge’s finding of a deficiency is erroneous. The Magistrate’s order also mistakenly stated at one point Plaintiff is in Boone County. This clerical error has no effect on the substance of that order or any Court proceedings, and is immaterial. Plaintiff’s complaint otherwise lacks sufficient factual allegations to give fair notice of his claims, and the Magistrate Judge’s order stands, except the deadline for Plaintiff to file his first amended complaint is extended to June 7, 2021, and failure to file an amended complaint will not result in dismissal for failure to follow a court order, but will result in the Court screening only the initial complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff objects that he has not consented to proceeding before the Magistrate Judge. This matter is not before the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s consent, but on referral by Court order to the Magistrate Judge. The matter remains referred. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will summarily overrule any further objections to the Magistrate’s orders prior to entry of a report and recommendation unless those objections are substantive. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 10) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2021. /s/P. K. Holmes, P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.