Jackson et al v. Matlock

Filing 4

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on February 12, 2013. Copy of Order mailed to non-CM/ECF participants. (jas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CHANDRA LYONS JACKSON; and
JOENATHAN JACKSON, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 2:12-02295

JANET MATLOCK, Chuck Fawcett Real Estate

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) filed in this case on
November 29, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for
the Western District of Arkansas. The objection period has passed with no objections being filed by
any party.1

The Court has reviewed this case and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows:
The Report and Recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED
and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Because Plaintiff has filed numerous cases with this Court that have been found to be subject
to dismissal upon initial review, the Court cautions Plaintiff to read the Report and Recommendation
herein adopted by this Court and to consider the law cited therein before filing any more cases.

1

The Court notes that Chandra Jackson, and in some cases her husband with her, has filed
four other cases arising from substantially the same facts as set forth in the Complaint in this case.
(Case nos. 12-2218, 12-2305, 12-2306, 12-2307). One case has been previously dismissed and
Reports and Recommendations have been filed in all the others recommending dismissal based on
lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff has filed identical objections in 12-2305, 12-2306, and 12-2307. To
the extent those objections also pertain to this case, the objections merely state a desire to have the
cases filed in a different court, which Plaintiff is free to do after a dismissal without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2013.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE