TAYLOR v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING the 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion, overruling Plaintiff's objections, denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, denying as moot Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction amd Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/04/2021. (jlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION ZACHARY BOUVIER TAYLOR, Plaintiff, CV 121-077 V. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; A.S.M.P. MENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR DONNA YOUNG; CERT TEAM OFFCER SMITH; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TAYLOR, A.S.M.P.; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CUNNINGHAM,A.S.M.P.; WARDEN EDWARD PHILBIN; NURSE BRUCKER, Psych Nurse, A.S.M.P.; OFFICER VALERIE FLOURNEY,A.S.M.P; OFFICER BRACEWELL; and OFFICER PROPHET WEBB, Defendants. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") under the three-strike provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Further, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff failed to qualify for the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to § 1915(g), as Plaintiff only presented general or conclusory allegations of threats and no factual details to demonstrate imminent danger. In his objections, Plaintiff argues he qualifies for the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g), and therefore should be granted permission to proceed IFF. (Id. at 2-5.) Plaintiff alleges details about the inmates and correctional officers who have threatened him, the nature of those threats, and the inadequate procedure he received before his involuntary medication. (Id.) Plaintiff did not provide this information anywhere in his complaint and therefore it was not before the Magistrate Judge. While courts have the discretion to consider novel evidence, factual claims, and legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to an R&R, they are under no obligation to do so. Prone v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.. 695 F. App'x 468, 472 (11th Cir. 2017)(concluding district judge has broad discretion in considering argument not presented to magistrate judge); Williams v. McNeil. 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). The Court chooses not to consider Plaintiffs new factual claims because Plaintiff had more than enough time to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES Plaintiffs request to proceed IFF, (doc. no. 8), DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction,(doc. no. 4-1), DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. no. 4-2), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED this of June, 2021, at Augusta, Georgia. [EF JUDGE STATES DISTRICT COURT lERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?