ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 24)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Guillermo Trujillo Cruz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

The undersigned previously declined to adopt the assigned magistrate judge's August 13, 2018 findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (See Doc. No. 14.) The undersigned concluded that the dismissals in two of the four cases relied upon in the August 13, 2018 findings and recommendations as strike dismissals did not properly qualify as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See id. at 2-3.) The court therefore granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id. at 3.) Thereafter, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff's complaint and found cognizable claims for conspiracy, retaliation, and cruel and unusual punishment. (See Doc. No. 17.)

On February 4, 2019, after defendant pointed the court to additional actions and appeals filed by plaintiff that were eventually dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous, the magistrate judge issued the pending findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant's motion for an order revoking plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (Doc. No. 22) be granted, finding that plaintiff is subject to the three-strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and has not met the imminent danger exception to that provision. (Doc. No. 24 at 3-5.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id.) On March 1 and April 5, 2019, plaintiff filed untimely objections. (Doc. Nos. 28, 30, 33.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff's objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

Plaintiff's objections fail to address the magistrate judge's conclusion that he is subject to the three strikes bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) since he has filed at least four prior actions that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous.1 The court finds no legal basis upon which to question the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in that regard. Furthermore, as the magistrate judge properly concluded, the allegations set forth in plaintiff's complaint are insufficient to trigger the "imminent danger of serious physical injury" exception to dismissal under § 1915(g). To the extent plaintiff has attempted in his objections to raise new issues and claims based upon events that occurred either before or after this action was initiated, those claims are not relevant to the court's finding that he has failed to establish he was in imminent danger at the time the complaint in this action was filed.

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.