Johnson v. Morales et al

Filing 24

ORDER denying 12 Motion ; denying 13 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting re 21 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, this action is dismissed w/o prejudice and this case is Closed. If pla wishes to proceed with the claims in this lawsuite, he must sumit a new complaint, along with the full filing fee. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 1/25/12. (cmr)

ORIGINAL

FILED
U.S. WSTRICI COURT
AUGUSTA DIV.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2012 JAN 25 PM 3:39

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

CLERK
50. 01ST. OF GA.

HENRY ERIC JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
CV 311-039

V.

JOSE MORALES, et al.,
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 (doe.
no. 23). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), because Plaintiff had brought at least three cases or appeals that were
dismissed for being frivolous or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In addition, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not qualify for the "imminent
danger exception" to § 19 15(g). (See doe. no. 21.)
In his objections, Plaintiff does not dispute that he is subject to the three strikes
provision of § 1915(g). However, he contends that he qualifies for the imminent danger
exception, in support of which he alleges that he suffers from various medical conditions for
which prison officials have provided inadequate treatment. (See doe. no. 23.) Notably, the
majority of the allegations in Plaintiff's objections concern incidents that occurred after

Plaintiff filed his complaint near the beginning of May of 2011, such as prison officials'
purported failure to dispense his medications in June and July of 2011. ( j at 8-10.)
These allegations are immaterial to the imminent danger inquiry, which is limited to
determining whether Plaintiff was in imminent danger of serious physical harm at the time
he filed suit. See Medberrv v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cit. 1999). Plaintiff's
remaining allegations are reassertions of facts that the Magistrate Judge properly found did
not satisfy the standard for showing imminent danger. (

doe. no. 21, pp. 7-10.)

In sum, Plaintiff's objections provide no basis for departing from the conclusions in
the R&R. As a result, his objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the R&R is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice, and Plaintiff's "Motion to Order Defendants Provide Specialist Medical
Treatments. . ." (doe. no. 12) and "Motion for Default Judgment" (doe. no. 13) are DENIED
AS MOOT. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this lawsuit, he must
submit a new complaint, along with the full filing fee. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234,
1236 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
SO ORDERED this

d'January, 2012, at Augusta, Georgia.

UNITED STA

2