Oliver v. Young, No. 7:2018cv00525 - Document 28 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 1/29/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'SOFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT ATDANM LLE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JA# 2! 2919 FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JULI C. UDLEY CL RK R OANOKE DIW SION BY:q EPWYCL D AN O LIV ER , Plaintiff, CivilA ction N o.7:18CV 00525 V. M EM OM NDUM OPIM ON YOUNG , D efendant. By: H on.Jaclcson L .K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge Thism attercom esbefore the courton M agistrate Judge Pam ela M .Sargent'sReportand Recommendation(the$:R&R''),whichrecommendsthatthisactionbedismissedwithoutprejudice ptlrsuantto thethee-strikesnzleof28U.S.C.j 1915(g). ECF No.18. Olivertimely filed his objections.ECFNo.23.Forthereasonsthatfollow,1willoverruleOliver's'objections,adoptthe R&R in itsentirety,deny Oliver'spendingm otions,ECF Nos.14,27,and dismissthecomplaint withoutprejudice,ECF No.1. 1. Background On October21,2018,Oliver,an inm ateatW àllensRidge StatePrison,filed a 42 U .S.C. j 1983civilrightscomplaintallegingthatthedefendànthadviolatedllisEighthAmendmentrights becausehiscellm atethreatenedtofightandlcillOliker,thelcitchen staffputsom ethingin hisfood to m ake him lose weight,and prison staffputdust,lint,and sm elly odorin the air circulation vents.l As a result of the defendant's actions, Oliver claims to have stzffered physical and Oliver v. Young Doc. 28 lOliverraisedotherclaimsinhiscomplaint,butthemagistratejudgedidnotaddressthem because theydidnotimplicatephysicalinjury.Theclaimsregardedmailtheft verbalabuseby correctionsofficers, and fraudulentcomm issary orders.See Compl.1-3. 1 Dockets.Justia.com emotionalinjuries.Heseeksinjunctivereliefand dnmagesandrequestspermissiontoproceedLq fonnanauperis(ç&1FP''). Dm ing initialscreening,1determined thatOliverwasa three-striker,and thathisclaim s m ay im plicateimm inentdanger. Order,ECF No.3. Ithen referred the m atterto them agistrate judge foratzR&R on whetherOlivermay proceed IFP. LQ JudgeSargentheld aheadngatld entered the R&R on N ovember28,2018. In theR&R,Judge Sargentrecomm ended thatldeny themotion toproceed1FP anddismisstheactionwithoutprejudicebecauseofOliver'sfailuzeto pay the filing feeand hisstattzsasavexatiouslitigantlm derthe Three StrikesRule. See R&R at 6.On December14,2018,OlivertimelyfiledobjectionstotheR&R. lI. Standard ofR eview A.R& R ln a report ptlrsuant to 28 U.S.C. j 636(b), the magistrate judge makes only recom mendations to the court. The recomm endations have no presllmptive weight, and responsibility form nking a finaldetermination rem ainswith the court. M athewsv.W eber,423 U.S.261,270-71(1976).ThecourtischargedwithmaldngaX novoreview ofthoseportionsof thereporttowhich speciûcobjectionismade,andmaySdaccept,reject,ormodify,inwholeorin pal' t,thefindingsorrecommendations''ofthemagistratejudge. 28U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). In the absenceofspecificobjectionstothereport,thecourtisnotrequiredto giveany explanation for adopting the recommendation. Cnmby v.Davis,718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). Objectionsthatonly repeatargumentsraised before amagistratejudge are considered general objectionstotheentiretyofthereportandrecommendation,wllichhasthesnmeeffectasafailtzre toobject.Veneyv.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d841,845(W .D.Va.2008). 2 B . Three-strikes R ule ThePrisonLitigationRefonnAct(:TL1tA'')restrictsplaintiffsfrom proceedingIFPtmder thefollowingconditions: Innoeventshallaprisonerbringacivilactionorappealajudgmentinacivilaction orproceeding underthissection ifthe prisonerhas,on 3 ormore prioroccasions, whileincarcerated ordetained in any facility,broughtan action orappealin acout't oftheUnited Statesthatw asdism issedonthegrotmdsthatitisfrivolous,malicious, orfailsto state a claim upon wllich reliefmay be granted,urllessthe prisoner is underimminentdangerofseriousphysicalinjtzry. 28U.S.C.j1915(g). To demonstrate imminent danger,a plaintiff must make <tspecific fact allegatiops of ongoing serious physicalinjury,or of a pattem of misconductevidencing the likelihoodofimminentseriousinjtuy.''M artinv.Shelton,319F.3d 1048,1050 (8th Cir.2003). Further,the plaintiffmustshow thatthe Gtconductcomplained ofthreatens continuing or f'uture injury,notwhethertheinmatedeservesaremedyforpastconduct.''Id. 111. D iscussion OliverobjectstotheR&R'srecommendationthatIdenyhismotiontoproceedIFP based on his status as athree-striker.z He firstcontendsthathe does notactually have three strikes. However,hisargum entiswithoutm erit.3 Hehasthreepriorcasesthatweredismissedforfaillzre to state aclaim wherehewasspecifically and repeatedly wanwd:Gtg-l-lhisdismissalmay affect (yourjabilitytoproceed in formapauperisin f'uturecivilactions.'' See Oliverv.Braxton,No. 1:01cv00121(E.D.Va.M arch30,2001), 'Oliverv.Taylor,No.1;01cv00221(E.D.Va.M arch 30, 2Oliverlistsseveralotherobjectionsrelatedtoclaimsthatdidnotimplicateimminentdangerof seriousphysicalinjuryunderj1915(g).lwillnotaddresstheobjectionsbecausetheyareirrelevanttothe presentinquiry. 3Oliverargues thatseveralcases filed in 2003 w ere wrongly dism issed because he had properly allegedimminentdanger.Oliverhadalready receivedthreestrikesby2003.Therefore,theobjectionhas norelevanceastowhetherOliverisavexatiouslitigantunderj 1915(g). 3 2001);Oliverv.Braxton,No.1:01-568(E.D.Va.M ay 16,2001).Therefore,hisfirstobjectionis overruled. lnhissecondobjection,Oliverreiterateshisarplmentfrom thehearingthathiscellmate, <$Uzzle,''puthim in imm inentdangerofseriousphysicalhnrm atthe tim ehefiled lliscomplaint. Underthe (Trison-M ailbox Rule,''aprisoner'spleading isfiled with the courtasofthedatethat theprisonerplaced thepleading in theprison system 'soutgoingm ailto thecourt. SeeHouston v. Lack,487U.S.266,275(1988).OliverfiledhiscomplaintonOctober21,2018,whenheplaced itin the outgoing mail. Uzzlewasremoved from Oliver'scellon October 12. Iagree with the magistratejudgethatOliverhasnotproperly allegedthathewasin imminentdangerf' rom Uzzle onthedatehesledthecomplaint.Therefore,Oliver'ssecondobjectionisovem zled. ForOliver'sthird andfourth objections,hemerelyrepeatshisargumentsthattheldtchen andprison staffarepoisoninghisfood andventilation system.Iagreewiththemagistratejudge thathis underlying allegations are conclusory and failto state a claim upon w hich relief m ay be granted.Therefore,Oliver'sthirdandfourth objectionsareovem lled. IV . Accordingly,Iwillovenule Oliver'sobjections,adoptthe R&R in its entirety,deny Oliver'smotiontoproceedIFP,anddismisstheactionwithoutprejudiceplzrsuanttoj1915(g).I willalso dismissOliver'smotion forinjunctivereliefand appointmentofcotmsel,ECF No.14, and hism otion foran evidentiaryhearing,ECF N o.27. 4 TheClerk isdirectedtosendacopy ofthism emorandtlm opinion and accompanying order to theparties. ENTERED thisgQ+KdayofJanuary 2019. , SE OR 5 J . ITED STA TES DISTR ICT JUD GE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
