Clarke v. Bryson et al

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield III's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 7 , Motion for Order to Show Cause 8 , Motion for Joinder of Persons 10 , and Motion for Status Report 11 are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/14/2015. (anc)

incarcerated “without notifying Petitioner-Plaintiff” of the “deadly side-effects,”
and that, as a result, he has been “drinking, . . . cooking, and bath[ing]” in “rotten
poisonousness” that “could lead to [his] death.” (Compl. at 1-2). Among other
things, Plaintiff demands that he be paid $100,000,000.00 and transferred to a
different prison immediately. (Id. at 3). The Complaint is devoid of anything
other than conclusory allegations regarding these claims of allegedly deadly water
contamination.
On April 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R. The Magistrate
noted that, since at least 1991, “Mr. Clarke has been a prolific filer of frivolous
civil actions and appeals, and he is now subject to the filing restrictions set forth in
28 U.S. C. § 1915(g).” (R&R at 1). The Magistrate concluded that Plaintiff’s
Complaint is “fantastic or delusional,” and recommended dismissal. (Id. at 2). He
further recommended that the Court certify that any appeal would not be taken in
good faith, and that Plaintiff is therefore ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal. (Id.). On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed his objections to the R&R. (Obj.
[9]). Plaintiff’s objections are rambling and incoherent.

2

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) (per curiam). 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). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation, a court
conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). “Parties filing objections to a
magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by
the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988).
B.

Analysis

A court “shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the Court determines
that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). “[F]rivolous claims include claims ‘describing fantastic or
3

delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too
familiar.’” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). The Court is not required to consider
Plaintiff’s rambling and incoherent objections to the R&R. See Marsden, 847 F.2d
at 1548. As a result, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the R&R. The
Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate’s finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint is
“fantastic or delusional,” and thus finds no plain error in his recommendation that
this action be dismissed.1
Plaintiff’s Complaint is also required to be dismissed because Plaintiff has
three strikes under Section 1915(g), and Plaintiff therefore was required to pay the
full filing and administrative fees at the time he submitted his Complaint. See
Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[A]fter three meritless
suits, a prisoner must pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates suit.”). Plaintiff
failed to do so, and has also failed to show that he was in imminent danger of
serious physical injury.

1

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is required to be dismissed, the remainder of
Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot.
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge E. Clayton Scofield

III’s Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery [7],
Motion for Order to Show Cause [8], Motion for Joinder of Persons [10], and
Motion for Status Report [11] are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

SO ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2015.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5