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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?