Jackson v. Ward

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION JAMON DEMETRIUS JACKSON; ) CHRISTOPHER BROWN; WALTER ) WILLIAMS; BLAKE HARRIS; and TRAVIS ) CUMMINGS, ) Plaintiffs, v. CV 619-085 COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C. WARD and WARDEN TERRENCE KILPARTRICK, ) Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which no objections have been filed. In lieu of objections, Plaintiff Jamon Demetrius Jackson filed a second motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. nos. 6, 7.) Because Plaintiffs’ complaint has not been screened by the Court and Defendants have not been properly served with the complaint, Mr. Jackson’s motion for summary judgment is premature. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A; Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984); Al-Amin v. Donald, 165 F. App’x 733, 736 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES without prejudice the above-captioned case, DIRECTS the Clerk to file and docket this Order and the instant complaint in five new lawsuits, with

the same filing dates and five separate case numbers, DENIES Mr. Jackson’s second motion to proceed IFP and motion for summary judgment, (doc. nos. 5, 7), and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket Mr. Jackson’s first motion to proceed IFP, (doc. no. 2), into the new case number associated with him. Once the five new lawsuits are opened, all Plaintiffs, except Mr. Jackson, must submit their own motions to proceed IFP within fourteen days of the date the Clerk opens the case. ! St SO ORDERED this day of October, 2019, at Augusta, Georgia.

LS i CW A PBULAS YDALHALL, CHIEF/JUDGE ATES DISTRICT COURT SO 3RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

'The Court recognizes Plaintiff Blake Harris’s copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the objection order, (doc. nos. 3, 4), were returned as undeliverable. The Court will address Mr. Harris’s failure to inform the Court of his current address in his new case.