United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
plaintiff Bob Aaron MikelPs 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit against
law enforcement and government entities involved in his 1995
search, arrest and prosecution,  is time-barred and thus, must be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
the sheer frivolity of MikelPs Complaint, a re-pleading
option is not warranted. Dysart v. BankTrust, 516
F.App'x 861, 865 (11th Cir. 2013) ("[D]istrict court
did not err in denying Dysart's request to amend her
complaint because an amendment would have been
futile."); Langlois v. Traveler's Ins. Co.,
401 F.App'x 425, 426-27 (11th Cir. 2010); Simmons v.
Edmondson, 225 F.App'x 787, 788-89 (11th Cir. 2007)
(district court did not err in dismissing complaint with
prejudice without first giving plaintiff leave to amend
because no amendment could have overcome the defendants'
immunity). This case should also be recorded as a
"strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
it is time for Mikell to pay his filing fee. His furnished
PLRA paperwork reflects a $618.27 average monthly balance
over the six month period prior to the date of his Prison
Account Statement. Doc. 6. He therefore owes a $103.05
initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b) (1) (requiring an initial fee assessment "when
funds exist, " under a specific 20 percent formula).
Plaintiffs custodian (or designee)
set aside 20 percent of all future deposits to his account,
then forward those funds to the Clerk each time the set aside
amount reaches $10.00, until the balance of the Court's
$350.00 filing fee has been paid in full.
the Clerk is DIRECTED to send this Report
and Recommendation (R&R) to plaintiffs account custodian
immediately, as this payment directive is nondispositive
within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), so no Rule 72(b)
adoption is required. In the event plaintiff is transferred
to another institution, his present custodian shall forward a
copy of this Order and all financial information concerning
payment of the filing fee and costs in this case to
plaintiffs new custodian. The balance due from the plaintiff
shall be collected by the custodian at his next institution
in accordance with the terms of the payment directive portion
of this R&R.
this R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to
this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service,
any party may file written objections to this R&R with
the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for
additional time to file objections should be filed with the
Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F.App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F.App'x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 The Court screens this case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal
of IFP complaints that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to
state a claim. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(courts must identify "cognizable claims" filed by
prisoners and dismiss claims which are frivolous, malicious,
fail to state a claim for relief, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant immune from such relief).
 Claims under § 1983 are barred if
not filed within two years after the cause of action accrues.
Mullinax v. McElhenney,817 F.2d 711, 715-16 n. 2
(11th Cir. 1987); Williams v. City of Atlanta, 794
F.2d 624, 626 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he proper
limitations period for all section 1983 claims in Georgia is
the two-year period set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 for
personal injuries."). Accrual occurs "when the
plaintiff has 'a complete and present cause of action,
' Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust
Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal.,522 U.S. 192, 201, 118
S.Ct. 542, 139 L.Ed.2d 553 (1997) (quoting Rawlings v.
Ray,312 U.S. 96, 98, 61 S.Ct. 473, 85 L.Ed. 605
(1941)), that is, when 'the plaintiff can file suit and
obtain relief, ' Bay Area Laundry, supra, at
201." Wallace v. Koto,549 U.S. 384, 388
(2007). The face of Mikell's Complaint roots his claims
in the latter half of the ...