WASHINGTON v. GILMORE

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEROME JUNIOR WASHINGTON, ) ) Civil Action No. 19 – 1461 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) District Judge Joy Flowers Conti ) Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan SUPERINTENDENT GILMORE, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Currently pending before the Court are the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed by Jerom Junior Washington (“Plaintiff”) and the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommends the Motion be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff has filed at least three actions in federal court that were dismissed as either frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and she concluded that Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP in this action pursuant to section 1915(g) because he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his Complaint. See (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff was served with the R&R and filed timely objections to it on November 26, 2019. (ECF No. 3.) When a party objects to an R&R, the district court must review de novo those portions of the R&R to which objection is made. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To obtain de novo review, however, a party must clearly and specifically identify those portions of the R&R to which it objects. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1 1984). The district court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-74. Here, Plaintiff states that he “should have the same rights as the rich in the court of law under its fairness and jurisdiction . . .” and that the defendants (presumably in his other cases) are

deceiving this court into believing that his allegations are “untruthful and dishonest.” (ECF No. 3, p.1.) Even if the court assumed that Plaintiff’s objection triggered de novo review, which it certainly does not, the court need not disturb the magistrate judge’s conclusions. The record shows that Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes and that he was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Furthermore, since the filing of the R&R in this case, Plaintiff accumulated another strike with the dismissal of Washington v. Gilmore, No. 18-1558 (W.D. Pa.) on November 22, 2019. An appropriate order will be entered. By the court:

/s/ JOY FLOWERS CONTI Joy Flowers Conti Senior United States District Judge

Cc: Jerome Junior Washington HV-0282 SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370