IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESORO DIVISION WILLIAM MITCHELL, ) Plaintiff, v. CV 620-031 KATHY PALMER, Judge; MATTHEW MITCHELL; and ) MELODY MITCHELL, Defendants.

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. 11, 13.)! The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under

(g) and abused the judicial process by providing dishonest information about his prior filing history. The Court finds Plaintiff's objections unavailing, but for the sake of completeness, notes Plaintiff verified the information in his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, not penalty of perjury. The distinction makes no difference to the correct analysis that the case is due to be dismissed.

'Plaintiff's second submission of objections was titled a motion in limine. The Court has considered the filing for what it is, objections to the recommendation for dismissal, and DIRECTS the CLERK to terminate the “motion.” (Doc. no. 13.)

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. no. 2), DENIES AS MOOT the motion to amend (doc. no. 6), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. As the case is being dismissed, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT the motions for appointment of counsel seeking assistance to pursue the case. (Doc. nos. 12, 14.) 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. See Dupree v. Palmer,

(11th Cir. 2002). SO ORDERED this fe day of May, 2020, at Augusta, Georgia.

ANDAL HALI/ CHIEF JUDGE D STATES DISTRICT COURT 4ERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA