COLEY v. HONEYCUTT et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 01/10/2022, that this action is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint on the proper § 1983 forms, accompanied by the filing fee or the requisite showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury. (Carter, Alexus)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROGER EARL COLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT JEFFREY HONEYCUTT,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:21CV79

ORDER
On November 2, 2021, the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 5)

within the time limit prescribed by § 636.
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo and
finds that they do not change the substance of the United States
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 3), which is affirmed and
adopted.
To the extent Plaintiff may be contending that he suffered
some physical injury in the past, that is not sufficient to show
imminent future danger of serious physical injury. See, e.g.,
Meyers v. Commissioner, 801 F. App’x 90 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Congress
intended that a three-strikes prisoner have opportunity to ask the
court for its aid in addressing a danger that is close at hand,

Case 1:21-cv-00079-TDS-JEP Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2

not a past infraction.”).1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed sua
sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint on
the proper § 1983 forms, accompanied by the filing fee or the
requisite showing of imminent danger of serious physical injury .

/s/
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge

January 10, 2022

Unpublished decisions of the Fourth Circuit are not precedential but
are cited for their persuasive authority of their reasoning. See Collins
v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213, 219 (4th Cir. 2006).
1

2

Case 1:21-cv-00079-TDS-JEP Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2