Milburn v. Kirk et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 13 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis ; denying 17 Motion to Stay. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on September 29, 2015. (rg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION

BEN MILBURN
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 3:15-CV-03033

JERRY F. KIRK; JOHN KIRK;
DAVID KIRK; ROGER DAUGHERTY

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc.
14) of United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas Mark E. Ford.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff Ben Milburn's Motion for Leave to Appeal
in forma pauperis (Doc. 13) be denied.

Miburn filed an Objection (Doc. 15) to the

Magistrate Judge's recommendation and a Motion to Stay the proceedings in State court
(Doc. 17). In light of Milburn's Objection, the Court has conducted a de nova review of the
case, including the stated basis for Milburn's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis
and Milburn's Objection to the R & R.
Milburn desires to appeal the Order of June 26, 2015 (Doc. 10), in which the Court
determined that the case should be remanded to State court for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction. In reviewing Milburn's Objection to the R & R, he offers neither law nor
fact that would cause the Court to reconsider its decision to remand the case. Accordingly,
an appeal of the Court's decision would be a frivolous endeavor, and in forma pauperis
status is appropriately denied for that reason alone . The Court further finds that the
Magistrate Judge's reasoning as to Milburn's alleged inability to pay the costs of an appeal
is well-reasoned. Milburn's attempt to clarify why he cannot pay the costs of an appeal,

as set forth in his Objection, is nonsensical. He has not properly demonstrated an inability
to pay.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R & R (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY; the Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 13) is DENIED; and
the Motion to Stay the proceedings in State court (Doc. 17) is also DENIED, as this Court

lacks jurisdiction over the State c: ur
IT IS SO ORDERED this

i

ase.
day of $eptember, 2015.

/>41<

/iflMOTlfY/!~ . BROOKS
/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2