IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Dennis Pointer, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. Case No. 2:11-cv-0109 

 

Mr. Marc, et al., JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER

On July 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be

required to pay the full $350.00 filing fee if he wishes to

proceed with this case. Plaintiff Dennis Pointer has objected to

that recommendation. For the following reasons, and after a de

novo review of the issues raised, the Court will overrule Mr.

Pointer’s objection and adopt the Report and Recommendation in

its entirety. 

I. Background

When Mr. Pointer filed this action, he had had three or more

cases or appeals dismissed in the past as frivolous or for

failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Pointer v. Brown &

Williamson, Case No. 1:97-cv-267 (S.D. Ohio); Pointer v.

Jorgensen, Case No. 1:00-cv-861 (S.D. Ohio); Pointer v. Lyon,

Case No. 1:02-cv-486 (S.D. Ohio). Consequently, the Magistrate

Judge noted that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act codified

at 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), the so-called “three strikes” rule, Mr.

Pointer could not proceed in forma pauperis unless he was under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

At the time of filing, Mr. Pointer was an inmate at the

Chillicothe Correctional Institution. While Mr. Pointer

addressed the issue of imminent danger in his initial motion, 

Case: 2:11-cv-00109-JLG-TPK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/28/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
the allegations of his complaint did not address events at the

Chillicothe Correctional Institution, but instead related to

events at the Allen Correctional Institution. As a result, the

Magistrate Judge was unable to consider the issue without further

information. In order to resolve this matter, the Magistrate

Judge ordered Mr. Pointer “to support his request for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis with an affidavit explaining the course

of treatment he has received since he arrived at the Chillicothe

Correctional Institution, accompanied by any medical records or

grievances related to his claim that he is still being denied

treatment in a way that threatens his future health or safety.” 

See Order (Doc. #6), p. 5. 

Despite having been afforded this opportunity, Mr. Pointer

did not support his request as directed by the Magistrate Judge.

Instead, Mr. Pointer filed a number of documents all of which

related to his incarceration at the Belmont Correctional

Institution. Because Mr. Pointer failed to demonstrate that he

was in imminent danger at the time of the filing of his

complaint, the Magistrate Judge, in reliance on Vandiver v.

Vasbinder, 2011 WL 1105652 (6th Cir. March 28, 2011), and the

plain language of §1915(g), recommended that Mr. Pointer be

required to pay the entire $350.00 filing fee.

Analysis

 In his filing Mr. Pointer, while acknowledging certain 

portions of the Report and Recommendation, does not specifically

object to any findings. Rather, his filing could fairly be

characterized as an explanation as to why his exhibits related to

his incarceration at the Belmont Correctional Institution instead

of at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. At most, he

suggests that the doctors at Belmont were following orders issued

by the psychiatrist at Chillicothe. He also makes brief mention

of circumstances he is encountering now that he is housed at the

-2-

Case: 2:11-cv-00109-JLG-TPK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/28/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Lebanon Correctional Institution. Finally, he asserts that the

grievance procedure established by the Ohio Department of

Rehabilitation and Correction is arbitrary and capricious and has

prevented him from being able to have his concerns addressed.

 Initially, the Court notes that objections to a report and

recommendation must be specific. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Further, “[t]he filing of vague, general,

or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of

specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to

object.” Drew v. Tessmer, 36 Fed. Appx. 561 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Consequently, Mr. Pointer’s objection could be overruled on this

ground alone. 

On the other hand, even construing Mr. Pointer’s filing as

raising a specific objection, he 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 Chillicothe Correctional Institution. Under

these circumstances, the law is clear: absent allegations of

imminent danger, the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Pointer is

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. The Report and

Recommendation therefore correctly concluded that Mr. Pointer’s

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied

and he should be assessed the full $350.00 filing fee.

For the reasons set forth above, the Report and

Recommendation is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED in its entirety. 

Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED. Plaintiff shall pay the full

$350.00 filing fee within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Plaintiff’s failure to do so will result in this case being

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and the

assessment of the full $350.00 filing fee against the plaintiff.

-3-

Case: 2:11-cv-00109-JLG-TPK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/28/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: July 28, 2011 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

-4-

Case: 2:11-cv-00109-JLG-TPK Doc #: 19 Filed: 07/28/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>