Gaither v. Bryson

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Gaither v. Bryson

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION RUSSELL GAITHER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CV 121-001 HOMER BRYSON; WARDEN JAMES ) DEAL; WARDEN MR. PHILBIN; ) MS. CHESTER; MR. ODGEN; SHEENA _ ) BLACK; SHERRY BLAND; CHIEF JUDGE ) SARAH F. WALL; RONALD J. STACY; __) STEPHEN E. CURRY; GWEN ) ROBERTSON; HELEN J. MERBERRY; ) GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF ) INVESTIGATION AND COMPLIANCE; _ ) CAROL W. BRAGG; MRS. JONES; ) MR. JACKSON; JOHN DOE; and ) WARDEN MARTY ALLEN, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 12.) Nothing in the objections changes the analysis that Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g) and therefore cannot proceed in forma pauperis because he does not qualify for the imminent danger exception. Similarly, although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint after entry of the recommendation for dismissal, (doc. no. 8), nothing in the amended complaint shows that Plaintiff qualifies for the imminent danger exception to the

three-strike rule. Rather, he continues to complain primarily about a lack of adequate supplies and library time to pursue his legal claims, which as the Magistrate Judge explained, does not qualify for the imminent danger exceptions. Moreover, as demonstrated by Plaintiff's multiple filings, he certainly has sufficient supplies to prepare and file detailed documents with the Court. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. no. 5), DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel (doc. no. 2), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this lawsuit, he must initiate a new lawsuit, which would require submission of a new complaint. See Dupree v. Palmer,

284 F.3d 1234, 1236

(11th Cir. 2002). SO ORDERED this [bday of March, 2021, at Augusta, Georgia.

K) JIMA DAL HALL, @HIEF JUDGE Ll] STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Reference

Status
Unknown