ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

This Court recently recommended that the district judge assigned to this case find defendant Michael Bevans-Silva competent to stand trial. Doc. 42. In its Report and Recommendation (R&R),the Court also explained that Bevans-Silva could not file any motions or other papers pro se while he is represented by counsel. Id. at 1 n. 1. In the less than two weeks since the R&R was filed, he has sent five additional documents to the Clerk for filing. Doc. 44 ("Notice of Request"); doc. 45 ("Unauthorized Use and Administration of My Trust"); doc. 46 ("Notice of Duress"); doc. 47 ("Notice of Authorized Representative"); doc. 48 ("Affidavit of Truth in the Nature of a Rebuttal and Refusal of Consent and Personam").

Unlike his previous filings, several of these documents include statements that suggest, if only ambiguously, Bevans-Silva may wish to dismiss his appointed counsel and proceed pro se. See doc 46 at 1 ("I am writing the courts to imply and express that I michael-reymond:bevanssilva [sic] represent myself in all matters."); doc 48 (stating that he was "handcuffed, intimidated, coerced, tricked and manipulated (while under duress) to sit next to Laura G. Hastay (whom is not my Attorney)." (emphasis added)). Such a request represents a limited exception to the prohibition on pro se filings by represented defendants. See S.D. Ga. L. Civ. R. 44.2. However, a criminal defendant's waiver of his right to counsel in order to proceed pro se is momentous. Thus, Bevans-Silva will have to clarify whether he wishes to make such a request, triggering the process — imposed by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and its progeny — necessary before allowing self-representation. See United States v. Garey, 540 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2008) (noting that, although an express affirmative assertion of the right to proceed pro se is not necessary to waive a defendant's right to counsel, a court would not "err by requiring any particular defendant to make a clear statement of his intention to proceed pro se").

If Bevans-Silva wishes the Court to commence proceedings to consider whether he should be allowed to dismiss appointed counsel and proceed pro se, he or his current counsel must file a motion expressly stating that desire. To the extent that the documents he has filed seek any other relief, such relief is DENIED. Doc. 44; doc. 45; doc. 46; doc. 47; doc. 48.

SO ORDERED.