DAKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 19

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's 1 Complaint, without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. The December 28, 2015, 10 Report and Recommendations is hereby VACATED and enter this Report and Recommendation in its stead. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 6/9/2017). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 5/26/2017. (csr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

WASEEM DAKER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-49

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BRIAN
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON; and BUREAU
OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS,
AND EXPLOSIVES,
Defendants.

ORDER and MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, filed this action
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 2670, et seq., and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 16, 2015. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff executed
his Complaint on February 1, 2015. (Id.) Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The case was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 4.) On
May 13, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 6.)
However, this Court later noted that a prisoner proceeding in a civil action against officers or
employees of government entities must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 10, p. 1.) After further review, the Court
denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (doc. 9). Additionally, I recommended
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
and that the Court deny Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff filed

Objections to this Report and Recommendation, arguing that he does not have any “strikes”
within the meaning of Section 1915(g). (Doc. 13.) Prior to the entry of an order disposing of the
Report and Recommendation, the Honorable J. Randal Hall issued an Order staying this action
until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals resolved an appeal Daker had filed with that Court in
an unrelated case. (Doc. 16.) The Eleventh Circuit has issued an opinion regarding Plaintiff’s
appeal. Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, 820 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.
2016). Chief Judge Hall has now lifted the previously-imposed stay. (Doc. 18.) Thus, I hereby
VACATE my December 28, 2015, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 10), and enter the
following in its stead. For the reasons which follow, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS
Plaintiff’s Complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and DENY Plaintiff
in forma pauperis status on appeal. 1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff contends that, on February 16, 2010, Defendant Brian Christopher Johnson
unlawfully obtained a warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
(Doc. 1, p. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Johnson obtained the warrant in order to assist the Cobb

1

A “district court can only dismiss an action on its own motion as long as the procedure employed is fair.
. . . To employ fair procedure, a district court must generally provide the plaintiff with notice of its intent
to dismiss or an opportunity to respond.” Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011)
(citations and internal quotations marks omitted). A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) provides such notice and opportunity to respond. See Shivers v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers
Local Union, 349, 262 F. App’x 121, 125, 127 (11th Cir. Jan. 8, 2008) (indicating that a party has notice
of a district court’s intent to sua sponte grant summary judgment where a magistrate judge issues a report
recommending the sua sponte granting of summary judgment); Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., 678
F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1296 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (noting that R&R served as notice that claims would be sua
sponte dismissed). This Report and Recommendation constitutes fair notice to Plaintiff that his suit is
barred and due to be dismissed. As indicated below, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to present his
objections to this finding, and the district judge will review de novo properly submitted objections.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see also Glover v. Williams, No. 1:12-CV-3562-TWTJFK, 2012 WL 5930633, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 18, 2012) (explaining that magistrate judge’s R&R
constituted adequate notice and petitioner’s opportunity to file objections provided a reasonable
opportunity to respond).

2

County District Attorney’s Office in opposing Plaintiff’s motion for bail in a then-pending state
prosecution. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains Defendant Johnson’s actions constitute the torts of false
arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff contends
Defendant Johnson failed to have Plaintiff transferred to a proper facility for his “safekeeping,
care, and subsistence[.]” (Id.) He further alleges that he was assaulted by other inmates while he
was housed in the Cobb County Jail as a result of Defendant Johnson’s failure to have Plaintiff
transferred to another facility. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff has brought this action in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may authorize the filing of a civil lawsuit without the
prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all of his
assets and shows an inability to pay the filing fee and also includes a statement of the nature of
the action which shows that he is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigence, the
Court must dismiss the action if it is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court must review a complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity. Upon such screening, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion
thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
When reviewing a Complaint on an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is
guided by the instructions for pleading contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain [among other things] . . .

3

a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10 (requiring that claims be set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set
of circumstances). Further, a claim is frivolous under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) “if it is ‘without
arguable merit either in law or fact.’” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by
the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Rundle, 393 F. App’x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2010). Under that
standard, this Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
plaintiff must assert “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not” suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Section 1915 also
“accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and
dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349
(quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)).
In its analysis, the Court will abide by the long-standing principle that the pleadings of
unrepresented parties are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys and,
therefore, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Boxer X v.
Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys.”) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hughes v. Lott, 350
F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)). However, Plaintiff’s unrepresented status will not excuse

4

mistakes regarding procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“We
have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as
to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”).
DISCUSSION
I.

Dismissal Under Section 1915(g)
A prisoner such as Plaintiff attempting to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action in

federal court must comply with the mandates of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Pertinently, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of the PLRA provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or
appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “[t]his provision of the PLRA,
‘commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision,’ requires frequent filer prisoners to prepay the
entire filing fee before federal courts may consider their lawsuits and appeals.” Rivera v. Allin,
144 F.3d 719, 723 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1997)). 2
Dismissals for providing false filing-history information and failing to comply with court orders
both fall under the category of “abuse of the judicial process”, which the Eleventh Circuit has
held to be a “strike-worthy” form of dismissal under Section 1915(g). See id. at 731 (dismissal
for failure to disclose prior litigation is “precisely the type of strike that Congress envisioned
when drafting section 1915(g)”); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1544 (11th Cir.
1993) (characterizing failure to comply with court orders as “abuse of the judicial process”).
2

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Section 1915(g) in Rivera. In so doing, the Court
concluded that Section 1915(g) does not violate an inmate’s rights to access to the courts, to due process
of law, or to equal protection, or the doctrine of separation of powers. Rivera, 144 F.3d at 721–27.
5

The Eleventh Circuit has held that a prisoner barred from proceeding in forma pauperis
due to the “three strikes” provision in § 1915(g) must pay the entire filing fee 3 when he initiates
suit. Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the proper
procedure for a district court faced with a prisoner who seeks in forma pauperis status but is
barred by the “three strikes” provision is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Dupree v.
Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff asserts that he does not have “three strikes” under Section 1915(g). (Doc. 17,
p. 3.) In Daker v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, 820 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.
2016), the Eleventh Circuit had occasion to consider whether Plaintiff was a three-striker within
the meaning of Section 1915(g) based on six (6) of Daker’s previous filings the Middle District
of Georgia cited as being “strikes”. The cases the Middle District of Georgia counted as strikes
were: 1) Daker v. Head, No. 01-14624 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2002) (an interlocutory appeal from a
civil lawsuit the Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); 2) Aziyz v. Tremble, No.
05-11696 (11th Cir. May 9, 2005) (same); 3) Daker v. Barrett, No. 03-15771 (11th Cir. July 26,
2004) (Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal from a civil lawsuit “for want of prosecution
because [Daker] has failed to file [an] appellant brief within the time fixed by the rules”); 4) In re
Daker, No. 12-12073 (11th Cir. July 12, 2012), (dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus
“for want of prosecution” under Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1(b) “because . . . Daker failed to pay
the $450 docket fee . . . within the time fixed by the rules”); 5) In re Daker, No. 12-12072 (11th
3

The applicable filing fee is now $400.00. “The entire fee to be paid in advance of filing a civil
complaint is $400. That fee includes a filing fee of $350 plus an administrative fee of $50, for a total of
$400. A prisoner who is granted in forma pauperis status will, instead, be assessed a filing fee of $350
and will not be responsible for the $50 administrative fee. A prisoner who is denied in forma pauperis
status must pay the full $400, including the $350 filing fee and the $50 administrative fee, before the
complaint will be filed.” Callaway v. Cumberland Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, No. CIV. 14-4853 NLH, 2015 WL
2371614, at *1 (D.N.J. May 18, 2015); see also Owens v. Sec’y Fla. Dep’t of Corr., Case No.:
3:15cv272/MCR/EMT, 2015 WL 5003649 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2015) (noting that the filing fee applied to
cases in which a prisoner-plaintiff is denied in forma pauperis status is $400.00).
6

Cir. Aug. 6, 2012) (same); and 6) Georgia v. Daker, No. 12-12519 (11th Cir. Nov. 5, 2012)
(same). The Eleventh Circuit noted that, in the last three dismissals listed, only “a single judge
of this Court denied Daker’s petitions to proceed in forma pauperis because his filings were
‘frivolous.’” Daker, 820 F.3d at 1282. The Eleventh Circuit determined that the three appeals,
which were dismissed for lack of prosecution, could not count as strikes because Daker’s
applications to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal were denied by one judge on the panel as
being frivolous. Id. at 1284–85. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the text of Section 1915(g)
mandates that the reason for the dismissal of a cause of action or an appeal—as opposed to a
denial of an application to proceed in forma pauperis—had to be because the cause of action or
appeal was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. Id. at p. 1285. In addition, the
Eleventh Circuit stated that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was likewise not a determination
on the merits of a litigant’s cause of action or appeal. Id. at p. 1284.
Thus, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the six (6) cases the Middle District of Georgia
used to label Plaintiff a three-striker did not constitute strikes under the language of Section
1915(g). However, the Eleventh Circuit made clear that it “express[ed] no view on whether
Daker has any other strikes . . . [or] as to whether one or more of the six dismissals might have
failed to qualified as strikes for other reasons.” Daker, 820 F.3d at 1286. Thus, the Eleventh
Circuit did not determine that Plaintiff is not a three-striker. Rather, it only determined that the
six (6) particular cases the Middle District of Georgia used did not constitute strikes for the
reasons the district court found. In recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint in this case be
dismissed based on Section 1915(g), the Court relied—at least in part—on the cases the Middle
District of Georgia found to be strikes. (Doc. 10, pp. 3–4.)

7

Nevertheless, reviewing Plaintiff’s history of filings anew reveals that he indeed has
brought more than three civil actions or appeals which count as strikes under Section 1915(g). In
reaching this conclusion, this Court has not utilized the same six (6) cases the Middle District of
Georgia counted as strikes. Instead, the following cases, which do not include any of the cases
the Eleventh Circuit found are not strikes, constitute strikes under Section 1915(g): 1) Daker v.
Warren, No. 13-11630-B (11th Cir. Mar. 4, 2014) (appeal dismissed after finding it frivolous; 2)
Daker v. Mokwa, 2:14cv395-UA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014), ECF No. 2 (complaint
dismissed as being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim; 3) Daker v. Robinson, 1:12cv-00118-RWS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2013) (Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed based on his failure to
follow a court order); and 4) Daker v. Dawes, 1:12-cv-00119-RWS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2013)
(same). The causes of action and appeals this Court cites to as being “strikes” were dismissed
for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim for relief. These causes of action and
appeals were not dismissed on any other ground which failed to address the merits of Plaintiff’s
claims. 4
This same review also reveals scores of other civil actions and appeals which were
dismissed and/or count as strikes under Section 1915(g). In re Daker, No. 1:11-CV-1711-RWS,
2014 WL 2548135, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 5, 2014) (summarizing Plaintiff’s litigation history).
This Court and other courts have noted that Plaintiff is a serial litigant with a significant history
of filing frivolous lawsuits. See e.g., Daker v. Head, et al., 6:14-cv-47 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2014),
ECF Nos. 13, 14 (R&R and Order denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis due to
three striker status); Daker v. Warren, No. 1:11-CV-1711-RWS, 2014 WL 806858, at *1 (N.D.

4

While the last two causes of action this Court cites were dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow
the orders of a court, the Eleventh Circuit has considered cases dismissed for this reason (or those
representing an abuse of the judicial process) to be “strike-worthy”. See Rivera, 144 F.3d at 731;
Malautea, 987 F.2d at 1544.
8

Ga. Feb. 28, 2014) (“Waseem Daker is an extremely litigious state prisoner[.]”). In light of
Plaintiff’s litigation history, the Eleventh Circuit “has determined that the ‘three strikes’
provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 is applicable to” him. See, e.g., Letter
dated May 29, 2014, in Daker v. Comm’r, No. 14–12139 (11th Cir. 2014); Letter dated April 18,
2014, in Daker v. Comm’r, No. 14–11571 (11th Cir. 2014) (same). 5
Because Plaintiff has filed at least three previously dismissed cases or appeals which
qualify as strikes under Section 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis in this
action unless he can demonstrate that he meets the “imminent danger of serious physical injury”
exception to Section 1915(g). “In order to come within the imminent danger exception, the
Eleventh Circuit requires ‘specific allegations of present imminent danger that may result in
serious physical harm.’”

Odum v. Bryan Cty. Judicial Circuit, No. CV407-181, 2008

WL 766661, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2008) (quoting Skillern v. Jackson, No. CV606-49, 2006
WL 1687752, at *2 (S.D. Ga. June 14, 2006) (citing Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349
(11th Cir. 2004))). General and conclusory allegations not grounded in specific facts indicating
that injury is imminent cannot invoke the Section 1915(g) exception. Margiotti v. Nichols, No.
CV306-113, 2006 WL 1174350, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 2, 2006). “Additionally, ‘it is clear that a
prisoner cannot create the imminent danger so as to escape the three strikes provision of the
PLRA.’” Ball v. Allen, No. 06-0496, 2007 WL 484547, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2007) (citing
Muhammad v. McDonough, No. CV306-527-J-32, 2006 WL 1640128, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 9,
2006)). Moreover, a harm that has already occurred or danger that has now passed cannot justify
skirting the three strike bar.

Medberry v. Butler, 185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999)

5

Courts have also recognized that Plaintiff has “repeatedly abused the judicial process by filing IFP
affidavits that conceal and/or misstate his true assets and income.” In re Daker, No. 1:11-CV-1711RWS, 2014 WL 2548135, at *2. Plaintiff’s allegations of poverty in this case are no different than those
made in other cases in which he sought to proceed without prepayment of his filing fee, and therefore,
provide an alternative ground for dismissal. (Doc. 2.)
9

(“prisoner’s allegation that he faced imminent danger sometime in the past is an insufficient
basis to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the imminent danger exception to
the statute.”); see also Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 315 (3d Cir. 2001) (“By using
the term ‘imminent,’ Congress indicated that it wanted to include a safety valve for the ‘three
strikes’ rule to prevent impending harms, not those harms that had already occurred.”).
Plaintiff should not be excused from prepaying the filing fee under the imminent danger
of serious physical injury exception.

His Complaint makes no allegation that Defendants’

alleged actions pose a serious risk of imminent physical danger.

Instead, Plaintiff makes

allegations concerning events which allegedly occurred in 2010, which is nearly five years prior
to the filing of his Complaint. Plaintiff makes no allegations that he actually faced this danger at
the time he signed his Complaint on February 1, 2015. Therefore, Section 1915(g) bars Plaintiff
from proceeding in forma pauperis in this case. Should Plaintiff choose to prosecute these
claims while incarcerated, he must bring a separate action and pay the full filing fee.
II.

Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
The Court should also deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 6

Though

Plaintiff has, of course, not yet filed a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court’s order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that
appeal is not take in good faith “before or after the notice of appeal is filed”).
An appeal cannot be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is
not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this
context must be judged by an objective standard. Busch v. Cty. of Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691
(M.D. Fla. 1999). A party does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a frivolous
claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or
6

A certificate of appealability is not required in this Bivens action.
10

argument is frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly baseless or the legal
theories are indisputably meritless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Carroll v.
Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993). Or, stated another way, an in forma pauperis action
is frivolous and, thus, not brought in good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in law or
fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Brown v. United States,
Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001, 2009 WL 307872, at *1–2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
Based on the above analysis of Plaintiff’s action, there are no non-frivolous issues to
raise on appeal, and an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Additionally, Daker’s status as
a three-striker prevents him from filing an appeal in forma pauperis, just as it prevents him from
filing this action. Thus, the Court should DENY him in forma pauperis status on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, I hereby VACATE my December 28, 2015, Report and
Recommendation, (doc.10), and enter this Report and Recommendation in its stead. For these
same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint, without
prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and DENY Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on
appeal.
The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to
file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that the Magistrate Judge failed to address
any contention raised in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will bar any later
challenge or review of the factual findings or legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be

11

served upon all other parties to the action. The filing of objections is not a proper vehicle
through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.
Upon receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United
States District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Objections not
meeting the specificity requirement set out above will not be considered by a District Judge. A
party may not appeal a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation directly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final
judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon the Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED and REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 26th day of May,
2017.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

12