Opinion
CV423-001
05-23-2023
RANDAL LAMAR RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. MORSE, Superior Court Judge, in His Individual and Official Capacity; TIMOTHY . WALMSLEY, Superior Court Judge, in His Individual and Official Capacity; SHALEENA COOK JONES, District Attorney, In Her Individual and Official Capacity; MARGARET H. DELEON, Asst. District Attorney, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; KATHERINE M. KELLY, Assistant Public Defender, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; and JAMES S. BYRNE, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE JR. JUDGE
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's March 21, 2023, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26), to which Plaintiff Randal Lamar Richardson has filed an objection (Doc. 27). The Magistrate Judge discovered that Plaintiff is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 19.15 (g)'s "three-strikes" provision, which precludes him proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is in "imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); (see also Doc. 26 at 4-5). As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff's "allegations concerning procedural problems with his pending criminal prosecution" are not sufficient to qualify for the exception. (Doc. 26 at 6.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and his case be dismissed without prejudice. (Id- (citing Dupree v. Palmer284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002)).) Plaintiff's objection does not dispute that he is subject to the three-strikes provision or contend that he qualifies for the exception; it simply reasserts the merits of his underlying claims. (See generally Doc. 27.)
After a careful review of the record, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Plaintiff accrued at least three § 1915(g) strikes before he filed the instant case and he does not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED (Doc. 2'), and the report and recommendation (Doe. 26) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED, and his complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All other pending motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. (Docs. 22, 24, 25.) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv«, Inc., 440 F.Supp.3d 1369, 1371 (N.D.Ga. 2020) (citing Macort v Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)) (outlining the standard of review for report and recommendations).
SO ORDERED