Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Juliane M. Iverson, Disability Review and Appeal Whistleblower v. Venuworks/Compass Facilities Management

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION


May 27, 2011

JULIANE M. IVERSON, DISABILITY REVIEW AND APPEAL WHISTLEBLOWER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VENUWORKS/COMPASS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, INC./ALERUS CENTER AND CAMRUD MADDOCK OLSON
& LARSON LTD., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge United States District Court

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 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.

Ralph R. Erickson

20110527

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.