Iverson v. VenuWorks/Compass Facilities Management, Inc/Alerus Center and Camrud Maddock Olson & Larson Ltd

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 by Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson. This case is dismissed without prejudice.(SH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
Juliane M. Iverson, Disability Review and
Appeal Whistleblower,
Plaintiff,
-vsVenuWorks/Compass Facilities
Management, Inc./Alerus Center and
Camrud Maddock Olson & Larson Ltd.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:11-cv-41
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

The Court has received a Report and Recommendation from the Honorable Karen K.
Klein, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, recommending that
Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal on May 10, 2011. The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. #10). Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation. To the extent that Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal can be construed as
an objection, the Court finds there is no identifiable legal or factual basis for contesting the
findings in the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, along with the entire
file, and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s position is correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby
adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons set forth therein,
Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Court hereby certifies that an appeal from the dismissal of this action may not be
taken in forma pauperis because such an appeal would be frivolous and cannot be taken in good
1

faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Iverson has not alleged any
basis for the Court’s jurisdiction or any actionable legal theory. A pro se complainant, although
granted in forma pauperis status, has “no right to prostitute the processes of the court by
bringing a frivolous action.” Galvan v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 804, 805 (8th Cir.
1987) (quoting Duhart v. Carlson, 469 F.2d 471, 478 (10th Cir. 1972)). Every pro se litigation
as a duty to inquire into whether the claim is worth pursuing further. Id. An otherwise qualified
litigant may be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis when the litigant has repeatedly and
unsuccessfully filed non-meritorious lawsuits. Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 Fed.Appx. 130,
132-133 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court finds any appeal taken by Iverson would not be in good faith
and, therefore, denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 27th day of May, 2011.
/s/ Ralph R. Erickson
Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2