Bishop v. Unknown et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on April 14, 2015. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ALLEN BISHOP
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:15-CV-02009

LUKE UNKNOWN; and TAMMY UNKOWN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 4) from United States
Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford to which Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 6). The Court has conducted
a de novo review as to all specified proposed findings and recommendations to which Defendants
have raised objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court cannot discern from Plaintiff’s objections any law or fact requiring departure from
the Magistrate’s report. Rather, the report of the magistrate appears to be well reasoned and the
recommendation to be sound. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims are
rooted in state law; Plaintiff has not stated a federal claim; and federal diversity jurisdiction does not
exist in this case. The Court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the report and recommendation of the Magistrate is proper
and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. For the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2015

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