Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00046/USCOURTS-alsd-1_05-cv-00046-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

By separate Order, the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 13) has been

rescinded due to the Court’s discovery of three prior frivolous

dismissals. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOOVER REYNOLDS, AIS # 133254, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0046-CG-M

GRANTT CULLIVER, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action, filed by an Alabama prison inmate

proceeding pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,1 was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4) for appropriate action. 

It is the undersigned’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s action be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Section 1915(g) provides: 

In no event shall a prisoner bring a

civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil

action or proceeding under this section [28

U.S.C. § 1915] if the prisoner has, on 3 or

more prior occasions, while incarcerated or

detained in any facility, brought an action

or appeal in a court of the United States

that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted,

Case 1:05-cv-00046-CG-M Document 20 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 4
2

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

Upon review of the records of this Court and of the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, the

undersigned finds that Plaintiff has three prior actions or

appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, namely, Reynolds v.

Wilson, CA 98-0248-CB-S (S.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2001), appeal

dismissed as frivolous (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2001); Reynolds v.

Bodiford, et al., CA 95-0829-AH-S (S.D. Feb. 14, 1996); and

Reynolds v. City of Montgomery, et al., CA 93-D-0388-N (M.D. Ala.

May 27, 1993).

In the present action, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 11) does

not indicate that at the time of filing, Plaintiff was “under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Medberry v. Butler,

185 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the plaintiff

must face imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time

the complaint is filed, not at a prior time). Rather,

Plaintiff’s present action is concerned with the search of his

personal property for contraband and his property’s subsequent

loss or destruction after he was transferred to administrative

segregation on a pending disciplinary charge and the failure to

give him a property sheet listing this property. Therefore, his

Complaint does not meet § 1915(g)’s “imminent danger of serious

physical injury” exception.

Because Plaintiff cannot avail himself of § 1915(g)’s

Case 1:05-cv-00046-CG-M Document 20 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 4
3

exception and did not pay the $150.00 filing fee at the time he

filed this action, Plaintiff’s action is due to be dismissed

without prejudice. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th

Cir. 2002) (holding that an action must be dismissed without

prejudice when an inmate who is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

does not pay the full filing fee at the time he initiates the

action); Vanderberg v. Donaldson, 259 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.)

(holding that the filing fee paid must be paid by an inmate

subject to § 1915(g) at the time an action is commenced), cert.

denied, 535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1449, 152 L.Ed.2d 391 (2002). 

Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404

(5th Cir. Unit B, 1982)(en banc). The procedure for challenging

the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set

out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which

provides that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

Case 1:05-cv-00046-CG-M Document 20 Filed 07/25/06 Page 3 of 4
4

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 25th day of July, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00046-CG-M Document 20 Filed 07/25/06 Page 4 of 4