IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Dwight Freeman, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-cv-878

 v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

Gary C. Mohr, et al., 

 Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Dwight Freeman’s objections to a Report and

Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on October 30, 2012. The Court, having

reviewed the record de novo, finds for the reasons set out below that the objections to the Report

and Recommendation are without merit. Mr. Freeman’s objections are OVERRULED and the

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

I.

When objections are received to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on a

dispositive matter, the assigned District Judge “shall make a de novo determination ... of any

portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made

....“ Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). After review, the District Judge “may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). General objections are insufficient to

preserve any issues for review; “[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has

the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

II. 

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr.

Freeman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) be denied and that he be required to

Case: 2:11-cv-00878-GLF-TPK Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/05/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
pay the entire $350.00 filing fee because he is subject to the “three-strikes” rule under 28 U.S.C.

§1915(g) and has not met the imminent danger exception. In reaching this conclusion, the

Magistrate Judge noted Mr. Freeman’s numerous assertions of imminent danger arising from the

alleged disregard of his medical conditions including his need for a hernia repair and pinched

nerves in his neck. The Magistrate Judge, citing Vandiver v. Vasbinder, 416 Fed.Appx. 560, 563

(6th Cir. 2011), recognized that the denial of medical treatment can satisfy the imminent danger

requirement. However, the Magistrate Judge concluded, based upon the 28-page exhibit

attached to Mr. Freeman’s complaint which included information regarding the medical care he

had received relating to these conditions, that Mr. Freeman was not in danger of serious physical

injury at the time he filed the complaint. See Report and Recommendation, p. 6. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate Judge relied upon several cases holding that

where a prisoner has received medical treatment but does not agree with the medical advice,

imminent danger has not been established. See, e.g., Brown v. Beard, 492 F.Supp.2d 474, 478

(E.D. Pa. 2007)(prisoner was not in imminent danger when disputing the quality of treatment he

was receiving for various medical conditions); Watley v. Escobar, 2010 WL 1643801 (N.D.

Ohio April 22, 2010)(no imminent danger where plaintiff received medical treatment but

disagreed with conclusions of medical personnel); James v. Hunter, 2009 WL 3052131, *3 (S.D

Alabama September 18, 2009) (disagreement with medical treatment provided does not satisfy §

1915(g) exception); Joyner v. Fish, 2008 WL 2646691 (W.D. Va. July 3, 2008) (imminent

danger not demonstrated when plaintiff had been given thorough medical treatment, never been

denied doctor visit, and been advised to take medication but disagreed with opinions of medical

professionals); Baugh v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 2008 WL 4831783, n.1 (E.D. Mo.

November 5, 2008)(no imminent danger where plaintiff admitted he was offered treatment for

medical conditions but disagreed with offered treatment). 

III. 

The focus of Mr. Freeman’s objection is that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding

that he had not demonstrated imminent danger of serious physical injury. Further, Mr. Freeman

argues that in reaching that conclusion, the Magistrate Judge should have considered only the

allegations of the complaint and should not have considered the information contained in the

-2-

Case: 2:11-cv-00878-GLF-TPK Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/05/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
exhibit Mr. Freeman attached to his complaint.

With respect to Mr. Freeman’s argument that the Magistrate Judge erred in considering

the exhibits attached to the complaint, courts are permitted to consider materials attached to the

complaint, especially when these attachments clarify matters. See Arauz v. Bell, 307 Fed.Appx.

923 (6th Cir. 2009); Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423, 427 (6th Cir. 2005). Consequently, the

Magistrate Judge did not err in doing so here. 

With respect to the issue of imminent danger, Mr. Freeman continues to detail his need

for a hernia repair and for treatment for pain caused by a herniated disc. As the Magistrate Judge

found, however, the essence of Mr. Freeman’s complaint is simply that he disagrees with the

opinions of the medical personnel who have examined him. Although Mr. Freeman devotes

pages of his objections to asserting that he is subject to imminent danger, the exhibits attached to

his complaint, as detailed at some length in the Report and Recommendation, indicate otherwise. 

According to the information he provided, Mr. Freeman has received medical attention for both

his hernia and his pinched nerve, has been prescribed medication, and has been advised to keep

health services informed of any changes in his condition. Mr. Freeman’s reliance on Jackson v.

Jackson, 335 Fed. Appx. 14 (11th Cir. 2009) does not require a different result because,

according to his documents, hernia surgery Mr. Freeman’s condition is considered an elective

procedure. For all of these reasons, Mr. Freeman’s objections will be overruled.

IV.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Mr. Freeman’s complaint and agrees with

the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Freeman has failed to show that he was under imminent danger of

serious physical injury as defined by §1915(g) for purposes of his current complaint filed while

he was incarcerated at the Ohio State Penitentiary. Consequently, Mr. Freeman’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis will be denied and Mr. Freeman will be required to pay the entire

$350.00 filing fee. If Mr. Freeman fails to pay the entire filing fee within thirty days of this

order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and Mr. Freeman

will be assessed the $350.00 filing fee. See, e.g., Cohen, 2011 WL 947085 at *5-6; see also In re

Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2002).

V. 

-3-

Case: 2:11-cv-00878-GLF-TPK Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/05/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 26)

and hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24). The

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is denied and plaintiff is required to pay the entire

$350.00 filing fee. If plaintiff fails to pay the entire filing fee within thirty days of this order,

this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

Case: 2:11-cv-00878-GLF-TPK Doc #: 27 Filed: 02/05/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>