Terrell v. Owens et al

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 6 Motion to Consolidate Cases; and dismissing this civil action without prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/25/2012. (thb)

TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
WILLIE TERRELL,
Plaintiff,
V.

CV 112-028

BRIAN OWENS, Commissioner, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 5). The
Magistrate Judge found, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(g), that Plaintiff had three prior cases
that were dismissed for being frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, and that he did not qualify for the "imminent danger" exception. As
a result, he recommended that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") be
denied and that this action be dismissed. (Doc. no. 3.)
Plaintiff's objections are without merit, do not warrant further discussion, and are
OVERRULED. In addition to his objections, Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting that the
Court consolidate the instant action with the five other actions that Plaintiff commenced
around the same time concerning many of the same events alleged in his complaint in this
case. (Doc. no. 6.) This motion is also without merit. It is within the Court's discretionary
authority to consolidate actions involving a common question of law or fact. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(a). However, consolidation is not warranted here because the Court has

determined in simultaneously issued Orders that all of Plaintiffs actions are subject to
dismissal pursuant to the three strikes provision of

§

1915(g). Therefore, Plaintiffs motion

for consolidation is DENIED (Doc. no. 6.)
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED
as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP is DENIED (doc.
no. 2), and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with
this civil action, he must submit a new complaint, along with the full filing fee. Du pree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
SO ORDERED this c26ay of

, 2012, at Augusta, Georgia.

£1
HONOBLE J. RADAL HALL
LJJSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2