IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

RASHAD C. LEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-125-WKW ) [WO] PAMELA HARRIS, JOSEPH H. ) HEADLEY, TAVOREZ SURLES, ) GERALD TIPPINS, TIMOTHY ) MCCORVEY, and QUINETTA ) SMITH, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21), filed June 23, 2025. Under Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties “may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In this case, the Magistrate Judge permitted the parties to file objections by July 7, 2025. (Doc. # 21 at 6.) To date, no objections or requests for extensions have been filed. Although Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Clerk of Court expressing dissatisfaction with the attempted payment of a filing fee in a different case, Mr. Lee’s letter does not include any specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. # 22.) Mr. Lee, in fact, acknowledges the Magistrate Judge’s finding, without objection, that the filing fee must accompany the complaint as mandated by

(g).1 (Doc. # 21 at 2–3.) Based upon

the foregoing and an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21) is ADOPTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice;

(2) The Order (Doc. # 11) granting Mr. Lee’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are VACATED; (3) Mr. Lee’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. # 2, 6) are DENIED;

(4) Mr. Lee’s requests for status updates (Docs. # 18, 19, 20) are DENIED as moot; and (5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to refund the remaining $350.00 of

the filing fee to Mr. Lee (Doc. # 16), as docketed on March 6, 2025 (Doc. # 9).

1 One of the recommend grounds for dismissal is based on

(g). This statutory provision prevents a prisoner from initiating a civil action if he has had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. If a prisoner has “three strikes” (i.e., three such dismissals) and fails to pay the filing fee when filing the new complaint, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice. See Dupree v. Palmer,

(11th Cir. 2002). As the Magistrate Judge correctly found, Mr. Lee had accumulated at least “three strikes” prior to filing this action, did not pay the full filing fee at the commencement of this action, and did not satisfy § 1915(g)’s imminent-danger exception. Although Mr. Lee paid the full filing fee, he did so after initiating this action, and under Dupree, “belated payment by a three-striker does not cure the initial failure” to pay the full filing at the time of filing. (Doc. # 21 at 4.) Final judgment will be entered separately. DONE this 25th day of July, 2025.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE