IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION ROY LATIMORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 325-101 ) SGT. MS. LATREVIOUS HALL; ) DR. SYDNEY PILINKO; ATRIUM ) HEALTH NAVICENT HOSPITAL; ) MS. VERONICA STEWART; ) RICKY WILCOX; CPT. JIMMIE KELLOM; ) MS. TONJI KEITH; JERMAINE WHITE; ) SGT. RIVERA; DR. BREADEN; ) DR. DAVID CHANEY; NURSE CRYSTAL ) MAYNOR; NURSE GRAVES; ) CITY OF TELFAIR COUNTY; and ) JOHN DOE INMATE, ) ) 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. no. 6.) The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case because Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes under

(g), and he does not qualify for the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to the three strikes rule. (See doc. no. 4, pp. 2-5.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended dismissal of the case because Plaintiff failed to truthfully disclose his prior filing history. (See

.) Plaintiff objects on multiple grounds, but none of his

arguments undermine the conclusion that the case should be dismissed for all of the reasons thoroughly explained in the Report and Recommendation. The Court is aware Plaintiff also submitted an affidavit in support of his contention that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury at his current place of confinement, Macon State Prison. (See doc. no. 7.) However, as the Magistrate Judge explained, (doc. no. 4, pp. 5, 10), any claims regarding Plaintiff's conditions of confinement at Macon State Prison must be filed in the Middle District of Georgia. Accordingly, the Cour. OVERRULES the objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. no. 2), DISMISSES this action without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. Because this case is dismissed, the Court DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel submitted as part of his objections. (Doc. no. 6, p. 7.) 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 OR iaay of December, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia

’