From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Gates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2021
No. 3:21-cv-00324 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2021)

Opinion

3:21-cv-00324

07-06-2021

REGINALD ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BILL GATES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALETA A. TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Reginald Anderson filed a pro se complaint against Bill Gates, Mia Parker, and Tony Parker. (Doc. No. 1.) However, the plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed as a pauper. Furthermore, the plaintiff used conflicting mailing addresses that suggested he was a prisoner at the Claiborne County Jail. (Id.)

The court ordered the plaintiff either pay the full $402.00 filing fee to the Clerk of Court or submit an application to proceed as a pauper. (Doc. No. 3.) In addition, the court ordered the plaintiff to “clarify in writing his current mailing address.” (Id. at 2.) The court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond, or request an extension of time, within 30 days would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. (Id.)

Out of an abundance of caution, the court mailed the order to both addresses provided by the plaintiff. (Doc. No. 3 at 2.)

The plaintiff, however, did not respond to the court's order in any way. Because the plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, this suit may not proceed on the merits in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Furthermore, this action is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep't, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Knoll v. AT&T, 176 F.3d 359, 362-63 (6th Cir. 1999)); see also Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 704 (6th Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled that a district court has the authority to dismiss sua sponte a lawsuit for failure to prosecute.”); Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962) (recognizing “the power of courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief”).

For these reasons, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Gates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 6, 2021
No. 3:21-cv-00324 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2021)
Case details for

Anderson v. Gates

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BILL GATES, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 6, 2021

Citations

No. 3:21-cv-00324 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 6, 2021)