IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MAXINE SHEPARD PLAINTIFF

Vv. No. 4:25-cv-198-DPM

JAMES CLYBURN, Rep. (D-SC), in his official capacity as Congressional Representative for the state of South Carolina; MARK A. MCGRAW, of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Arkansas; UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, College of Health Sciences; U.S. DIGITAL SERVICE (US DOGE Service); and U.S. DOGE SERVICE TEMPORARY DEFENDANTS ORGANIZATION

ORDER 1. The Court gave Shepard an opportunity to show good cause why her complaint should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3). Doc. 18 at 2. She responded, maintaining her claims of demonic possession and remote human experimentation. Doc. 21. 2. □□□ also moved for me to recuse because she declines to have a magistrate judge handle her case and because she believes I am biased. First, I am a district judge, not a magistrate judge. Second, no one knowing all the material facts could reasonably question my

impartiality.

(a). Adverse rulings do not indicate bias. Liteky v. United States,

(1994). 3. | Shepard’s claims have no sound basis in fact or law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) & (3). Her embedded request to amend, Doc. 21 at 9-10, is denied as futile. Zutz v. Nelson,

(8th Cir. 2010). Correcting the name of the University of Missouri defendant would not address the deep problem in the case. And Shepard’s response, Doc. 21, makes it clear that any amended complaint would reassert and supplement her frivolous allegations. 4. The stay is lifted. The complaint will be dismissed. The motion for recusal, Doc. 19, is denied. The other motions, Doc. 2, 3, 9, 16, & 20, are denied as moot. So Ordered. OPMNG4AAAM F- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge A wary 205°

=F