United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and Recommendation  ("R&R") and Plaintiff's pro se Objections .
On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Mike Redford ("Plaintiff"), who is incarcerated in the Douglas County Jail in Douglasville, Georgia, filed a Complaint  in the form of a letter to Magistrate Judge King. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asks the Court to "enquire further into [an] ongoing nightmare." (Compl. at 1). Although largely incomprehensible, Plaintiff asserts that he filed two complaints with "Chief Judge of Gwinnett County [sic] Superior Judge Dawson Jackson [sic] and Chief Magistrate Judge Davis" seeking an investigation into what appears to be the abuse of his children, and has not yet received a response from those judges. (Id.). Plaintiff also asserts that "the judges from Georgia" have allegedly contacted various educational facilities to prevent Plaintiff from "graduating from the doctoral program, " "from getting admitted to the Bar, " and "from getting his PhD [sic] on information security." (Id. at 1-2). Plaintiff further asserts that he is subject to a one-sided divorce decree that state judges are allegedly construing against him. (Id.). Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to investigate the alleged misconduct of the state judges.
On September 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff IFP status and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Plaintiff, while incarcerated, previously filed at least three civil actions that have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim.
On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R.
A. Legal Standard on Review of an R&R
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright , 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay , 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
Plaintiff's objections do not address the Magistrate Judge's reasons for dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, and instead assert generic arguments about his right to access to the courts. See Marsden v. Moore , 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court."). As Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's specific findings and conclusion, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's determination for plain error.
Section 1915(g) of Title 28 prohibits a prisoner from proceeding IFP if the prisoner has
on 3 or more 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, ...