Brazell v. Ball et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
MICHAEL BRAZELL, JR. 	PLAINTIFF
ADC #500711
V. 	NO. 2:25-cv-00138-BSM-ERE
BALL, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I. 	Procedure for Filing Objections
This Recommendation for the dismissal of Mr. Brazell’s claims has been sent
to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written objections to
all or part of this Recommendation. Objections, if filed, must: (1) specifically
explain the factual and/or legal basis for the objection; and (2) be received by the
Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If
you do not object, you risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact.
II. 	Background
Pro se plaintiff Michael Brazell, Jr., an Arkansas Division of Correction
(“ADC”) inmate, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 2. His 201-page
complaint 	names 	twenty-three 	Defendants 	and 	contains 	numerous 	general
conclusory allegations in support of multiple factually and legally unrelated claims. 1
1 Mr. Brazell’s complaint alleges that: (1) he has only been allowed eight hours of outside
recreation in the one year that he has been held in solitary confinement; (2) Defendants Ball Davis,
Case 2:25-cv-00138-BSM Document 11 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
On August 1, 2025, I entered an Order explaining the multiple problems with
Mr. Brazell’s complaint but giving him 30 days to file an amended complaint
asserting only related claims. Doc. 8. Mr. Brazell did not comply with my August 1,
2025 Order and did not file an amended complaint. As a result, on September 29,
2025, I directed Mr. Brazell to confirm whether he intended to proceed with this
lawsuit and to identify which claim set forth in his complaint that he wanted to
pursue in this lawsuit. Doc. 9. I specifically warned Mr. Brazell that if he failed to
respond to my September 29 Order, I would recommend that this case be dismissed.
To date, Mr. Brazell has not responded to my September 29 Order, and the
time to do so has passed. In addition, on October 9, 2025, Mr. Brazell’s mail from
the Court was returned undeliverable with the notation “refused.” Doc. 10. 	Mr.
Randle, Richardson, Hayne, and King are aware that he has been denied the opportunity to engage
in outdoor recreation, but have failed to address this issue; (3) in September 2024, Defendant
Roberinson sexually harassed him; (4) Defendants Ball, Davis, Richardson, Hayne, Allison,
Coleman, Mills, and Prater turned a “blind eye” to Defendant Roberinson’s conduct; (5)
unidentified Defendants retaliated against Mr. Brazell for filing grievances regarding Defendant
Roberinson’s conduct; (6) unidentified mental health counselors have been deliberately indifferent
to Mr. Brazell’s mental health needs; (7) Defendants Bennett and Kerstein have been deliberately
indifferent to Mr. Brazell’s serious medical needs, including their failure to order x-ray
examinations of his shoulder, back, knee, wrist, and head; (8) Defendants Sander, Ball, Davis,
Richardson, Randle, Hayne, Banister, Blak, Minor, and Scruggs violated Mr. Brazell’s due process
rights by denying him the right to call witnesses and present evidence at “every disciplinary that
was wrote against me” (Doc. 2 at 12); (9) Defendants Westbrook, Smith, Ball, Davis, Randle, and
Richardson have been deliberately indifferent to his safety by failing to place him in protective
custody after a “hit” was placed on him (Id. at 14); (10) Defendants Wright, Ball, Davis, Randle,
and Richardson have denied him access to the courts and the law library; (11) Defendants Wright,
Ball, Davis, Randle, and Richardson have denied him the opportunity to practice his religion; (12)
unidentified Defendants have denied him access to his “tablet” (Id. at 17); (13) the conditions of
confinement are unconstitutional; and (14) unidentified Defendants have improperly processed his
grievances in violation of his due process rights.
Case 2:25-cv-00138-BSM Document 11 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Brazell has not provided the Court with a different address. Finally, Mr. Brazell has
not filed anything in the case since July 30, 2025.
III. 	Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Mr. Brazell’s complaint be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on
his failure to: (1) respond to my September 29 Order; and (2) prosecute this lawsuit.
2. 	The Clerk be instructed to close this case.
DATED 3 November 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00138-BSM Document 11 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 3