Redford v. James
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 2 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is DENIED in forma pauperis status and Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/24/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MIKE REDFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-2043-WSD
JUDGE ROBERT W. JAMES,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] (“R&R”). The R&R considers Plaintiff Mike
Redford’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for Mandamus Relief [1] (“Complaint”). The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis status
and that his Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
On June 27, 2014, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in the Douglas County
Jail in Douglasville, Georgia, filed his Complaint. Plaintiff seeks a writ of
mandamus compelling Judge Robert W. James, a Douglas County Judge, to rule on
several outstanding pretrial motions in his pending state court criminal action.
On July 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny
Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), on the grounds that Plaintiff, while incarcerated, previously filed
at least three civil actions that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for
failure to state a claim.
On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed his objections [4] (“Objections”) to the
R&R. Plaintiff’s Objections do not address the Magistrate Judge’s reasons for
dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint, and instead assert generic arguments about his
right to access to the courts.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge
2
must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.
Analysis
As Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s specific findings and
conclusion, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s determination for plain error.
See Slay 714 F.2d at 1095.
Section 1915(g) states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on
3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff, while incarcerated, has brought at least three
actions that were dismissed as frivolous,1 and Plaintiff has not established that he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Magistrate Judge properly
determined that Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis Complaint was barred by § 1915(g),
and that it should be dismissed without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d
1
Redford v. Lewis, 1:04-CV-1636-WBH;Redford v. Hamil, et al., 1:04-CV933-WBH; and Redford v. Gwinnett County Judicial Circuit, et al., 1:02-CV-2739WBH
3
1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court finds no plain error in these findings. See
Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is DENIED in forma pauperis
status and Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2014.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?