MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge.

This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 31) and Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 33).

On April 9, 2018, the Court entered a PLRA screening Order dismissing several claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 13). The surviving claims were served, and the case is currently ongoing, with a deadline of November 2, 2018 for the submission of a summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 26). In his Motion, Plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal the PLRA screening Order (ECF No. 13). As grounds for the extension, Plaintiff states the Arkansas Department of Correction has an inadequate law library. (Id.).

Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal is premature, as a final decision has not yet been entered in this case. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 (Westlaw through Publ. L. No. 115-221); Dieser v. Contl. Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2006) (A final decision, within the meaning of the statute providing courts of appeal with jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of district courts, ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment).

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that "[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." As Plaintiff's Motion is premature, Defendant's appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 31) and Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 33) be DENIED.

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.