IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION KATHY REAVES; TIESHA DANIELLE ) EVANS; and DMITRI A. REAVES, ) Plaintiffs, v. CV 124-065 DAVID LEVERT KYLER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), to which objections have been filed by Plaintiff K. Reaves. (Doc. no. 13.) Since the June 10, 2024 R&R was entered, (doc. no. 6), the Court received Plaintiff Evans’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (doe. no. 8), Plaintiffs’ two motions to amend their complaint, (doc. nos. 9-10), and a procedurally improper Rule 26(f) Report containing only Plaintiffs’ signatures, (doc. no. 11). Nothing in the objections or motions change the R&R’s conclusion this case is due to be dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements of the Local Rules and pay the required filing fee within the allotted time. In multi-plaintiff suits, every plaintiff must qualify for pauper status. Thus, if even one plaintiff fails to qualify for pauper status, the filing fee must be paid. See Curry v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 117-CV-4450-WSD-AJB,

, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2017), adhered to on recons.,

(N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2018) (“Although only one filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed [IFP], each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.” (citations omitted));

Zaragoza v. Litton Loan Servicing, No. 1:10-CV-4117-RWS-AJB,

, at □□ (N.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2011) (same). Here, the Court never received an IFP motion from Plaintiff D. Reaves and Plaintiff K. Reaves does not qualify for IFP status, (doc. nos. 2, 4). Thus, Plaintiffs must pay the filing fee and have failed to do so. Notably, Plaintiff K. Reaves has filed dozens of federal cases in Georgia and South Carolina containing substantially similar claims as the instant suit arising out of a Georgia arrest warrant and her arrest in South Carolina. See, e.g., Reaves v. Washington, et al., No. 4:23-CV-3847-JD, doc. no. 8 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2023) (collecting cases); Reaves v. Clayton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., et_al., No. 1:23-CV-1082-LMM, doc. no. 21 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2023) (same). The Court warns Plaintiff K. Reaves that if she continues to abuse filing in this District concerning the same underlying claims, the Court will not hesitate to enact filing restrictions like those imposed in the District of South Carolina. See No. 4:23-CV-3847-JD, doc. no. 25. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the objections, (doc. no. 13), ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. Because this case is due to be dismissed, the pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. nos. 5, 8-10.) The Court further DIRECTS the CLERK to TERMINATE the pending motion associated with the procedurally improper Rule 26(f) Report. (Doc. no. 11.) ORDERED this ZZYL day of July, 2024, at Augusta, Georgia.

□□□ ET SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA