Filed: Jun. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN, District Judge. 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. 1 The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U, .C. 1915(g), and he failed to pay the filing fee as directed in the Magistrate Judge's March 6., 2014 Order. (Doc. no.
Summary: ORDER DUDLEY H. BOWEN, District Judge. 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. 1 The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U, .C. 1915(g), and he failed to pay the filing fee as directed in the Magistrate Judge's March 6., 2014 Order. (Doc. no. ..
More
ORDER
DUDLEY H. BOWEN, District Judge.
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.1 The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because Plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to the three strikes provision of 28 U, .C. § 1915(g), and he failed to pay the filing fee as directed in the Magistrate Judge's March 6., 2014 Order. (Doc. no. 87.)
In his objections, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge improperly vacated his IFP status because he does not have three strikes and because he was in imminent danger at the time of filing such that he qualifies for the exception to § I915(g). (See doc. nos. 94, 96, 97.) However, Plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments he made in response to Defendants' motion to vacate his IFP status. (Doc. nos. 75, 79,) Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge discussed Plaintiffs assertion that he was in imminent danger at the time of filing and found his allegations wholly insufficient to satisfy the exception (doe. no. 83, p. 4). Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs original and amended objections because they do not provide any reason to depart from the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation.
In addition to his objections. Plaintiff has filed several unrelated motions requesting that the Court appoint counsel to represent him, issue an injunction regarding mail procedures at his prison, and admit evidence. (Doc. nos. 89, 90, 91, 92.) Because the Court is dismissin this case due to Plaintiffs failure to pay the filing fee, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs motions.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs motion to compel (doe. no. 86), and DISMISSES this case.
SO ORDERED.
