TAYLOR v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ZACHARY BOUVIER TAYLOR,
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
EDWARD PHILBIN; NURSE BRUCKER,
Psych Nurse, A.S.M.P.; OFFICER VALERIE
BRACEWELL; and OFFICER PROPHET
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.
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?