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)

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