IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION ERNEST A. SWINSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-CV-04011-WJE ) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ) ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ernest A. Swinson’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that Mr. Swinson’s motion be denied. On January 23, 2025, Mr. Swinson, proceeding pro se, filed the instant case. (Doc. 1). On January 26, 2025, the Court found that while Mr. Swinson could not pay the filing fee, his Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. (See Doc. 2). On February 7, 2025, Mr. Swinson filed a notice of appeal and a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Docs. 21, 22). “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)(3). “An appeal is frivolous, and therefore cannot be taken in good faith, ‘where it lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.’” Maddox v. Chisago Cnty. Sheriff Office, No. 10-CV-2133,

, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2010) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989)). For the reasons set forth in this Court’s Order dated January 26, 2025, this case presents issues which fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore, Mr. Swinson’s appeal “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” and cannot be taken in good faith. Neitzke,

. IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the District Judge deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Dated this 9th day of February 2024, at Jefferson City, Missouri. Willie J. Epps, Jr.

Willie J. Epps, Jr. Chief United States Magistrate Judge