Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05131/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05131-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM D. GARLAND PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5131

 

RANDALL DENZER; and

SGT. FOSTER DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On June 21, 2006, this case was dismissed (Doc. 30). On November 20, 2006, the

plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 32) and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis

(Doc. 33). The motion for leave to appeal IFP was referred to the undersigned. 

Pursuant to Rule 3(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure an appeal may be

taken from the district court to the court of appeals by the filing of a notice of appeal with the

district court clerk within the time allowed by Rule 4. In civil cases, generally, the notice of

appeal “required byRule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment

or order appealed from is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. A reasonable person could not

suppose this appeal would have some merit. It is clear that plaintiff has missed his deadline for

filing an appeal from the underlying order. I therefore recommend that the motion to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. The plaintiff may, of course, file a motion to appeal IFP

with the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 40 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The parties have ten 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.

DATED this 4th day of January 2007. 

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05131-JLH Document 40 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>