DANIELS v. BARBER et al

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ROY O. DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:26-cv-2-TKW-MAF
THERESA BARBER and JAMES
HAIGLER
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 5). The Court reviewed
the issues raised in the objections de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed under the “three strikes
statute,” 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).1 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1 Even if the case was not dismissed on this ground, it would be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the complaint asserts constitutional
violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against private individuals, not governmental employees acting
under color of state law, and it is well established that Ҥ1983 excludes from its reach merely
private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Focus on the Fam. v. Pinellas
Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003).
Case 1:26-cv-00002-TKW-MAF Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED,
and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00002-TKW-MAF Document 6 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 2