Wilson v. Williams et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Recusal; overruling Plaintiff's 28 Objections to the Report and Recommendation; concurring with and adopting the Magistrate Judge's 27 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint and closing this case; directing the Clerk of Court to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal; additionally, dismissing as moot Plaintiff's pending [17, 22, 29, 30, 33, 34, and 36] motions; and denying Plaintiff leave to receive in forma pauperis status on appeal, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/02/2015. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

DONALD PAUL WILSON,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-l 1

v.

WARDEN STANLEY WILLIAMS; UNIT
MANAGER BRIAN CHAMBERS; and
COMMISSIONER BRIAN OWENS,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated September 4, 2015.

(Doc. 27.)

The Magistrate Judge determined

Plaintiff is a "three striker" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and he failed to meet the

imminent danger exception to that statute allowing him to proceed with this cause of action

without first paying the requisite filing fee. (Doc. 27, pp. 3-5.) Rather than responding to and

attacking the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff chose to attack the

Magistrate Judge, as well as other Judges in this District and in the Middle District of Georgia.
(Doc. 28, pp. 2-4.)

Plaintiffs Objections largely are unresponsive to the Report and

Recommendation and are without merit.

The Court notes Plaintiff filed several Motions after the Magistrate Judge issued his

Report. Among these Motions is a Motion for Injunctive Relief, (doc. 29), in which Plaintiff
contends the State Board of Pardons and Paroles rescinded his granted liberty interest by

rescinding its previous decision and giving him a new tentative parole month. This contention

does not bear upon the Report and Recommendation, because it does not reveal that Plaintiff was

in imminent danger at the time he filed his Complaint on February 4, 2015.
Plaintiff attempts to meet the imminent danger exception to Section 1915(g) by stating
Deputy Warden Bobbitt came to his cell on September 10, 2015, with tactical squad members in
an attempt to "provoke, intimidate, lure, bait, and entrap" him into a physical confrontation.
(Doc. 30, p. 2.)

According to Plaintiff, this was done as an excuse for prison officials to

"assault" him "due to [the] prejudiced, biased, oppressive tyrant" Magistrate Judge's
"vile/vindictive order delivered on September 8, 2015[,] to the prison."

(Id.)

Once again,

Plaintiff fails to show he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed

his Complaint to permit him to proceed without first paying the fee associated with the filing of a
Section 1983 cause of action.

Plaintiff has also sought the recusal of the Magistrate Judge, Chief Judge Lisa Godbey

Wood1, and the undersigned. (Doc. 34, p. 4.) "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test of whether a judge should be recused under this
section is whether "'an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts

underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about

the judge's impartiality.'"

United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004)

(quoting United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003)). Both the Magistrate

Judge and the undersigned relied on relevant case law and statutes in disposing of Plaintiffs
Complaint, and an objective lay observer could not doubt the Magistrate Judge's and the

undersigned's impartiality. In addition, Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit setting forth any
1 It appears Plaintiff mentions ChiefJudge Wood simply by virtue of her position as ChiefJudge of the
Southern District of Georgia. Chief Judge Wood has had no involvement in the disposition of this cause
of action.

facts or reasons he believes the Magistrate Judge or the undersigned may have any prejudice
against Plaintiff, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 144. Plaintiffs request for a recusal is, therefore,
DENIED.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court OVERRULES

Plaintiffs Objections. (Doc. 28). The Court CONCURS with the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the
opinion of the Court. Thus, Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED and this case is CLOSED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. In addition,

Plaintiffs pending motions, (docs. 17, 22, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, and 36), are DISMISSED as moot.
Moreover, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff is DENIED leave to receive informa pauperis status on appeal.
SO ORDERED, this C<

day of November, 2015.

HONORA1EEJ. RANDAtfHXLL
UNITED STTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA