Jackson et al v. Matlock et al

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations and 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 J. JACKSON; and JOE NATHAN JACKSON, JR. v. PLAINTIFFS Case No. 2:12-CV-02307 JANET MATLOCK, Chuck Fawcett Realty; DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CLAIRE BORENGASSER, Sebastian County; CHUCK FAWCETT; LINDA BENDER; and DAVID BENDER DEFENDANTS ORDER Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) filed in this case on December 6, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s timely filed objections (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has filed four other lawsuits before this Court arising from substantially the same facts alleged in the Complaint in this case. (Case nos. 12-2218, 12-2295, 12-2305, and 12-2306). All cases have either been dismissed or have a Report and Recommendation pending recommending dismissal. Plaintiff has filed identical objections in this case and in cases 12-2305 and 12-2306. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections, which appear to state that Plaintiff wishes her various lawsuits to be filed in a different court and that she will be retaining an attorney. The Court cannot discern any objections to the Magistrate’s findings or recommendations that would persuade the Court that the Report and Recommendation should not be adopted. Therefore, having reviewed this case and, being well and sufficiently advised, the Court 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 Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s 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. 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?