Riggins v. Morris et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 8 Report and Recommendations, DENYING 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, OVERRULING Plaintiff's objections, DISMISSING this case without prejudice, CLOSING this civil action. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 11/17/2020. (maa)

Download PDF
Case 3:20-cv-00053-DHB-BKE Document 12 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 2 n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA U.S.D i i AUGU EO U J i\ Iq / 'I Pi'' b' 1 .. im TO n P 2: 35 DUBLIN DIVISION L. DARYL DEWAYNE RIGGINS, Plaintiff. V. DEANN MORRIS; MITZl HALL; FNU LOMAMI; FNU BROWN; SUSAN OLIVER; FNU LINDSEY; TARRA JACKSON; KOCHELLE WATSON; EDGINALD GIBBONS; LAKISHA FRANKLIN; CHABARA DAVIS BRAGG; and ANTOINE G. CALDWELL. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) c u CV 320-053 ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. nos. 10, 1 1 .) The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP”) and dismissing this case without prejudice because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and provided blatantly dishonest information about his prior filing history. (See doc. no. 8.) The Magistrate Judge also concluded that Plaintiff had not alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious Case 3:20-cv-00053-DHB-BKE Document 12 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 2 physical injury such that he should be excused from paying the full filing fee despite having at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See id. at 3-4.) Nothing in the objections changes the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, in fact, the objections buttress the conclusion Plaintiff is receiving ongoing medical treatment. He simply is not receiving the treatment he prefers. As the Magistrate Judge explained, such circumstances do not satisfy the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See id.) To the extent Plaintiff may be trying to file a new lawsuit or appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with his documentation at pages four through eight in his second set of objections, (doc. no. 11), he must file a new, separate lawsuit if he wishes to pursue the claims in the above-captioned case. Moreover, as Plaintiff acknowledges, (id. at 4), any appeal to the Eleventh Circuit may be made only from a final judgment, not entry of a Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff should separately file any post-judgment action he believes appropriate upon entry of this Order. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES Plaintiffs request to proceed IFP, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with the claims raised in this lawsuit, he must initiate a new lawsuit, which would require submission of a new complaint. Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). SO ORDERED this }Tday of November,2020, at Augusta, Georgia. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUEif@€^ 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?