UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ALONZO JOHNSON, JR., : Case No. 1:20-cv-248 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : vs. : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. : Bowman UNITED STATES CONGRESS, : : Defendant. :

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 2)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on April 6, 2020, submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, because Plaintiff has violated

(g)’s three strikes rule. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff has filed untimely objections.1 (Doc. 3).

1 Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. Plaintiff appears to argue that, regardless of whether he has violated

(g)’s three strikes rule, the Court should allow him to proceed in forma pauperis, because he is in imminent danger of physical injury. (Doc. 3 at 1–2).

(g) does contain a “safety valve,” which allows a plaintiff to file a complaint in forma pauperis, when the plaintiff faces imminent danger. Bloodworth v. Mohr, No. 1:16-cv-1049,

, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). However, as the Magistrate Judge has already explained, Plaintiff does not qualify for the “imminent danger” exception. (Doc. 2 at 3). Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any particular allegations, showing that Plaintiff faces any impending harm. (Id.; see also Doc. 1-1). And, while Plaintiff’s objections contain the conclusory assertion that Plaintiff has faced both police “brutali[zation]” and other harms in the past, (Doc. 3 at 2), a plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that he has “faced danger in the past is insufficient to invoke the [‘imminent danger’] exception.” Rittner v. Kinder,

(6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. As required by

(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) is ADOPTED in its entirety; 2. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 3) are OVERRULED in their entirety; 3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

4. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL pay the full $400 fee ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) required to commence this action; 5. Plaintiff SHALL take notice that his failure to pay the full $400 fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order will result in the dismissal of his action; and 6. Pursuant to

(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 5/8/2020 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge