Bush v. Scott et al
ORDER ADOPTING 17 Report and Recommendations, OVERRULING the objections, DENYING Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction, DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's motions to proceed without paying the initial filing fee, DISMISSING this case without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process, and CLOSING this case. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 03/8/2017. (maa)
U.S. OISTFICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
201] MAR-8 PM 14:39
WILLIAM RAYMOND BUSH,
C02 LARHONDA SCOTT,Disciplinary
Report Investigating Officer; LT. STEPHAN
FOSTER, Supervisor; SGT. HOLLOMAN,
Supervisor; and JOHN INMAN,Deputy
Warden of Security,
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. 19.)
Nothing in Plaintiffs objections undermines the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, and
only one objection warrants further comment.
First, Plaintiff repeatedly contends he does not have three strikes under the PLRA and
therefore dismissal is improper.
(See id. at 1-2.)
However, the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal based on Plaintiffs failure to disclose his prior filing history, not
because Plaintiff had three strikes. (See doc. no. 17, p. 3.) Moreover, as the case law cited in
the Report and Recommendation makes clear, failing to disclose prior filing history will not
be tolerated, and the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly approved of dismissing a case without
prejudice as a sanction. (See id.) Therefore, Plaintiffs contention is meritless.
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?