IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Kenneth Barbour, :

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:10-cv-978

 v. :

Federal Prisons, et al., : JUDGE SARGUS

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEMP

 Defendants. :

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff, a Virginia state prisoner, has submitted a

request to file a civil action in forma pauperis. Because his

request was not accompanied by sufficient information to allow

the Court to determine what filing fee to assess, the Court

directed him to submit a certified account from the prison

cashier which indicates both the average monthly balance in his

account for the last six months and the amount of income credited

to his account during those months. That order stated that upon

receipt of that information, the Court would calculate the

initial partial filing fee and the monthly installments, and a

separate order directing payment would issue. 

Plaintiff complied with that order, and also asked for leave

to amend his complaint to include the Attorney General as an

additional defendant. His financial information shows a zero

balance in his account and zero average monthly deposits. 

However, for the following reasons, the Court concludes that he

is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, and it will be

recommended that this case be dismissed.

In that section of the complaint asking about prior

litigation, plaintiff identified six prior cases by number,

followed by an “et al.” In fact, a review of the docket of the

Case: 2:10-cv-00978-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/10/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia

shows that plaintiff has filed at least 67 cases in that judicial

district. Almost all of them have been summarily dismissed for

the same reason - that plaintiff has had three or more cases

dismissed previously for failure to state a claim, that he has

been repeatedly told that he is not eligible to proceed in forma

pauperis without alleging an imminent threat of serious injury,

that he has not alleged such a threat, and that he has not paid

the required filing fee. See, e.g., orders issued in the

following cases on the following dates:

Case Number Date of order

7:09-cv-480 November 25, 2009

7:10-cv-145 March 31, 2010

7:10-cv-157 April 23, 2010

7:10-cv-317 July 28, 2010

7:10-cv-320 July 28, 2010

This is a non-exhaustive list of this type of dismissal; there

are many more.

It would appear that plaintiff filed his complaint in this

court - which, incidentally, is nearly incomprehensible and which

does not name any suable entity - in an effort to get around the

fact that if he filed in his home district, his case would surely

be dismissed. He should fare no better here. Clearly, under the

“three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28

U.S.C. §1915(g), plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis based on a partial assessment of a filing fee. He has

made no allegation here that he is in imminent danger of serious

harm. It is also clear that he has been told repeatedly of the

need to pay the filing fee and has chosen to file suits without

doing so. Like the district court in Virginia, this Court finds

that his case ought to be dismissed at this juncture. Therefore,

it is recommended that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis

Case: 2:10-cv-00978-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/10/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-3-

(#1) be denied and that this case be dismissed for failure to pay

the required filing fee.

 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-00978-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/10/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>