Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05073/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05073-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JO ANN HOFFMANN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5073

MAX WILCOX, Commissioner of 

Lands, et al. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 13th day of June, 2006, comes on for

consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate

Judge (document #4), and plaintiff’s Response To Report And

Recommendation (document #5)(“Objections”). The Court, having

carefully reviewed both documents, finds that the R&R is sound in

all respects, and that plaintiff’s objections thereto are without

merit, for the following reasons.

1. Plaintiff’s Objections fall into three categories. She

first objects that the Magistrate Judge was without jurisdiction

to act in the matter, there being no consent. This objection is

without merit, as the matter is not one where the Magistrate

Judge’s jurisdiction depends upon the consent of the parties.

Plaintiff accompanied her Complaint with an Application To Proceed

Without Prepayment Of Fees. Pursuant to this Court’s General

Order 22, applications to proceed without prepayment of fees (“in

forma pauperis”), and questions of whether service of process

shall issue in such cases, are referred to the Magistrate Judge,

as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1)(A).

Case 5:06-cv-05073-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

subject to a later determination as to whether the Complaint

should be served upon the defendants. This was the posture in

which the Magistrate Judge took up the issue of service of

process.

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) provides that when a case is filed

in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time

if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous

or . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

Those were the bases upon which the Magistrate Judge recommended

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge was, thus,

acting within the powers granted to her by this Court, and within

the laws enacted by Congress for the handling of proceedings in

forma pauperis. 

2. Plaintiff also objects that the Magistrate Judge‘s

“Facts, findings and Conclusions are not in accord with

substantiated evidence.” This objection is lacking in merit

because the recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge are not

fact-based, but law-based. The Magistrate Judge reported that the

allegations made by plaintiff do not fall within the legal

parameters of the causes of action asserted by her. At this point

in the proceedings, the factual proof is irrelevant. Before she

is entitled to present proof in support of her claims, plaintiff’s

claims must pass legal muster, and in this case, they do not.

Case 5:06-cv-05073-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

3. Finally, plaintiff makes numerous legal objections, none

of which - to the extent the Court is able to decipher them - have

any merit. Those objections will, therefore, be overruled.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections to the

Report And Recommendation are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the

Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge, plaintiff’s

claims are hereby dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05073-JLH Document 6 Filed 06/13/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>