From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simba v. Branch

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jun 17, 2008
1:07CV712 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 17, 2008)

Opinion

1:07CV712.

June 17, 2008


ORDER


On March 27, 2008, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed, and notice was served on the parties, and a copy was given to the court.

Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation.

The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16) be GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is HEREBY DISMISSED as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

FURTHERMORE, the court HEREBY TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that this is Plaintiff's third strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In any subsequent lawsuits brought by Plaintiff, he will be required to first pay the prefiling fee unless he can show that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.


Summaries of

Simba v. Branch

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jun 17, 2008
1:07CV712 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Simba v. Branch

Case Details

Full title:YA JELANI SIMBA, Plaintiff, pro se, v. WENDY BRANCH, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Jun 17, 2008

Citations

1:07CV712 (M.D.N.C. Jun. 17, 2008)

Citing Cases

Strickland v. Wang

Specifically, Congress created the so-called "three-strikes" rule under section 1915(g) of the PLRA in order…

Simba v. Branch

We affirm the remainder of the district court's order, including the imposition of a limited pre-filing…