Rev. Jason Timothy Bolyard v. In re: Declaratory Judgment on Status

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

REV. JASON TIMOTHY BOLYARD,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 6:25-cv-067

v.

IN RE: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON STATUS,

Defendant.

O RDE R After a careful, de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 6). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case based on lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE any potential state law claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not entitled to in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on appeal. Although Plaintiff has not yet filed a notice of appeal, it is appropriate to address these issues now. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A) (“A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization, unless the district court - - before or after the notice of appeal is filed - - certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith . . . .”). An appeal cannot be taken IFP if the trial court certifies, either before or after the notice of appeal is filed, that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. See Busch v. Cnty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962)). A party does not proceed in good faith when seeking to advance a frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445. A claim or argument is frivolous when, on their face, the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Stated another way, an IFP action is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States, Nos. CV 407-085, CR 403-001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009). Based on the thorough analysis in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which the Court adopts herein, there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff IFP status on appeal. The Court DIRECTS the CLERK to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment. SO ORDERED, this 18th day of December, 2025. Sipe R. STAN BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA