Oliver v. Ward (INMATE 4)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:24cv298-MHT

) (WO)

CAM WARD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, an inmate,

filed this lawsuit contending that he has been

improperly denied parole and a low security level that

would allow him to participate in work release. This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge that, pursuant to

the ‘three strikes’ provision set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g), plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis be denied and the case be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to pay the filing and

administrative fees upon initiation of the case. Also

before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the

recommendation, in which he asserts that his complaint

should not be dismissed under section 1915(g) because

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

After an independent and de novo review of the

record, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections

should be overruled and the magistrate judge’s

recommendation adopted. Although plaintiff asserts in

his objections that he is in imminent danger, these

assertions are unrelated to the allegations in his

complaint, and accordingly are not relevant to the

court’s assessment of whether section 1915(g) applies

to his case. See Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1350

(11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that, in applying 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g), “the issue is whether his complaint,

as a whole, alleges imminent danger of serious physical

injury.” (Emphasis added.)).

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 28th day of June, 2024.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE