govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-1_24-cv-01049-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
 EASTERN DIVISION 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
GREGORY D. DOUGLAS, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. No. 1:24-cv-01049-JDB-tmp 
 
WHITEVILLE CORRECTIONAL 
FACILITY, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL 
WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF THE 
APPELLATE FILING FEE AND STRIKE RECOMMENDATION, AND CLOSING CASE 
 _____________________________________________________________________________ 
 
On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff , Gregory D. Douglas, Tennessee Department of Correction 
prisoner number 458144, who is currently incarcerated at the Whiteville Correctional Facility in 
Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket Entry 
(“D.E”) 1 (the “Complaint”).) On June 13, 2024, Douglas filed a motion for leave to proceed in 
forma pauperis (D.E. 4), which the Court granted and assessed the $350.00 filing fee in accordance 
with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915, et seq. (D.E. 5.) 
On May 18, 2026, the Court screened the Complaint pursuant to the PLRA and dismissed 
Plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim for relief. (D.E. 6 (the “Screening Order”).) The Court 
granted leave to amend the claims dismissed without prejudice within twenty-one days of the date 
of the Screening Order. (Id. at PageID 34-35.) The Court warned Douglas that if he “fails to file 
an amended complaint within the time specified, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice 
and enter judgment.” (Id. at PageID 35.) 
Plaintiff’s deadline to submit amended claims expired on June 8, 2026. He has neither PageID
<pageID>
2 
submitted an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to do so. 
Accordingly, the case is DISMISSE D WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety for the reasons 
discussed in the Screening Order. The Court recommends that this dismissal be treated as a strike 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Simons v. Washington, 996 F.3d 350, 353 (6th Cir. 2021). 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it is 
CERTIFIED that any appeal in this matter by Douglas would not be taken in good faith. If Plaintiff 
nevertheless chooses to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the entire $605.00 appellate 
filing fee or submit a new in forma pauperis affidavit and, if incarcerated, a current, certified copy 
of his inmate trust account statement for the last six months, in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 
1915(a)-(b). 
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in accordance with the Screening Order. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June 2026. 
 s/ J. DANIEL BREEN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight