Seagroves v. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) et al

Filing 16

ORDER: The Court finds no merit in the plaintiff's objections and they are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED. The previous order 3 of this Court is VACATED to the extent that the plaintiff was g ranted pauper status. His current pending application 5 to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED. The plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of entry of this order on the docket in which to remit the full filing fee of $350.00. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/1/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ALVIN SEAGROVES
Plaintiff,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.

No. 1:11-0035
Judge Trauger

O R D E R
On May 26, 2011, an order (Docket Entry No.3) was entered
granting the prisoner plaintiff pauper status and referring this
action to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
The Court has before it the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Docket Entry No.6) in which he urges the Court to
vacate that part of the referral order granting the plaintiff
pauper status. The plaintiff has filed timely objections (Docket
Entry No.13) to the Report and Recommendation.
In his complaint, the plaintiff avers that he had not filed
any other lawsuits previously in federal court. Docket Entry No.1
at

pg.2.

The

misstatement

Magistrate
of

the

Judge,

facts.

He

however,
cites

found
in

that

the

to

Report

be

a

and

Recommendation three actions filed by the plaintiff in federal
court that were dismissed for being either frivolous or for failure
to state a claim. In the absence of any showing of imminent danger

of serious physical injury, the Magistrate Judge asserts that the
plaintiff is barred by statute from proceeding in this matter as a
pauper. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
In his objections, the plaintiff does not allege that the
Magistrate Judge misidentified prior filings as “strikes”. Rather,
he claims that he has shown an imminent danger of serious physical
injury, an exception that would allow the plaintiff to proceed as
a pauper.
In order to make a sufficient showing of imminent danger, the
plaintiff must demonstrate “any immediate or specific danger of
future serious physical injury.” Davis v. Cook, 2001 U.S. App.
LEXIS 2491 (6th Cir; 2/7/01); Reid v. Tirey, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS
31758 (6th Cir.; 12/17/98). The plaintiff’s claim of imminent danger
is predicated upon the defendants’ failure to provide him with
adequate medical care. The defendants allegedly denied him that
care while was an inmate at the South Central Correctional Center.
The plaintiff, however, has not been an inmate at that facility
since May 23, 2010. Docket Entry No.1 at pg.7. He does not claim
that he is being denied medical care at his present place of
confinement. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The Court finds no merit in the plaintiff’s objections and
they

are

OVERRULED.

The

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation is ADOPTED and APPROVED. The previous order (Docket
Entry No.3) of this Court is VACATED to the extent that the

plaintiff

was

granted

pauper

status.

His

current

pending

application (Docket Entry No.5) to proceed in forma pauperis is
hereby DENIED.
The plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of
entry of this order on the docket in which to remit the full filing
fee of three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00). In re Alea, 286 F.3d
378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002). The plaintiff is forewarned that, should
he fail to comply with the instructions of the Court, the full
amount of the filing fee will be assessed against him and collected
from his inmate trust account, and this action will be dismissed
for want of prosecution.1 Id.
It is so ORDERED.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

1

After entry of the Report and Recommendation but before
filing his objections, the plaintiff submitted a Motion to Amend
(Docket Entry No.11) the complaint with an allegation of imminent
danger. Because the Motion was unsigned, the Magistrate Judge
ordered its return to the plaintiff for signature. See Docket
Entry No.14. The Motion has not yet been returned and was not
considered with the plaintiff’s objections. Rule 11(a),
Fed.R.Civ.P. Nevertheless, had the Motion been signed and
returned, it adds nothing that would change the conclusion
reached by the Court.