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)

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