Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on August 3, 2018, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 37). Judge Marschewski recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Larry David Davis's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 31) and his Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recom
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on August 3, 2018, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 37). Judge Marschewski recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Larry David Davis's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 31) and his Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recomm..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on August 3, 2018, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 37). Judge Marschewski recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Larry David Davis's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal (ECF No. 31) and his Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and his time to do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations that occurred while he was incarcerated in the Clark County Jail. On April 9, 2018, the Court entered a screening order that dismissed several of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed multiple documents, including a notice of appeal, a motion for extension of time to file an appeal, and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
On August 3, 2018, Judge Marschewski filed the instant Report and Recommendation. Judge Marschewski found that Plaintiff's motions for an extension of time to appeal and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are premature because the Court's April 9, 2018, screening order did not dismiss all of his claims in this case. Thus, Judge Marschewski reasoned that the Court's screening order is not a final judgment from which Plaintiff may appeal at this time. Judge Marschewski concluded that an appeal of that screening order at this time would not be taken in good faith and, thus, the Court should deny Plaintiff's motions.
Upon consideration, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The Court's April 9, 2018, screening order is not a final judgment from which Plaintiff may appeal at this time because it did not dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims in this case. Thus, Plaintiff's appeal of the April 9, 2018, screening order will not be taken in good faith.1 Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 37) in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 31, 33) are hereby DENIED. Plaintiff may renew his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
