Opinion
Case No. 2:04-cv-265.
February 23, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. The Court has received objections from the petitioner. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made.
Plaintiff argues that he did exhaust his grievance remedies against defendant Carolyn. However, a review of the complaint shows that plaintiff failed to establish exhaustion against each defendant on each of the claims that he asserted. Instead of simply showing that he exhausted his grievance, plaintiff has caused confusion by attaching numerous unrelated grievances to his complaint. Plaintiff has failed in his burden of showing that he exhausted his grievance remedies.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court.
The court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the court grants defendants' motion to dismiss, the court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should the plaintiff appeal this decision, the court will assess the $255 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $255 appellate filing fee in one lump sum.