From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Ajibade

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
Aug 8, 2011
CV 311-020 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2011)

Opinion

CV 311-020.

August 8, 2011


ORDER


After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R R"), to which objections have been filed (doc. nos. 13, 14). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for abusing the judicial process by providing dishonest information about his prior filing history. (Doc. no. 9.)

Plaintiff requested, and was granted, an extension of time in which to file his objections to the R R. (Doc. nos. 11, 12.) Plaintiff then filed two documents, both of which contain objections to R R. (Doc. nos. 13, 14.) For ease of reference, the Court will hereinafter refer to both of these documents collectively as Plaintiff's "objections."
Also, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to provide him with a free copy of the "pro se litigant guide"; he also appears to request a free copy of the entirety of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Georgia, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. (Doc. no. 15.) This motion is DENIED, as Plaintiff is not entitled to free copies of such documents. See Wanninger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992, 994 (11th Cir. 1983) ( per curiam) ("A prisoner's right of access to the court does not include the right of free unlimited access to a photocopying machine. . . ." (citation omitted)); see also Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983) ("[B]road as the constitutional concept of liberty is, it does not include the right to xerox."). Copies of any Court record or paper may be purchased at a cost of $.50 per page from the Clerk of Court.

Plaintiff's objections consist primarily of recitations of inapplicable legal doctrine, such as qualified immunity. (See, e.g., doc. no. 13, p. 2.) Plaintiff also appears to argue that his allegations of inadequate medical treatment qualify him for the "imminent danger" exception to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) that prohibits prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis in civil actions if they have had three or more cases or appeals dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. (See id. at 1, 3; doc. no. 14.) Notably, however, the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissing Plaintiff's complaint under § 1915(g), and Plaintiff's objections fail to address his abuse of the judicial process, which the Magistrate Judge properly determined to warrant dismissal of this case without prejudice. Because Plaintiff provides no reason for departing from the conclusions set forth in the R R, his objections are OVERRULED.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as a sanction for Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Ajibade

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
Aug 8, 2011
CV 311-020 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Jackson v. Ajibade

Case Details

Full title:MARK WAYNE JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. FNU AJIBADE, Doctor, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division

Date published: Aug 8, 2011

Citations

CV 311-020 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mcrae

As to Defendant's request for a docket sheet and copies of motions, Defendant is not entitled to free copies…

Evans v. Roundtree

Plaintiff is not entitled to free copies of Court records. See Jackson v. Ajibade, No. CV 311-020, 2011 WL…