Opinion
6:24-cv-02969-JDA
07-17-2024
Justin Locklear, Plaintiff, v. J. Reuben Long Detention Center, Marcus Rhodes, Horry County EMS, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge
Plaintiff Justin Locklear, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docs. 1; 1-2.] In signing the Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledged that he was responsible for notifying the Clerk in writing of any change of address and that failure to keep his address updated with the court may lead to dismissal of the case. [Doc. 1-2 at 14.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings.
By Order dated May 17, 2024, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the necessary information to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process, including paperwork regarding payment of the filing fee. [Doc. 4.] Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information and paperwork within the timetable set in the Order may subject the case to dismissal. [Id. at 1.] The Order also reminded Plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address and warned that failure to keep his address updated with the Court may lead to dismissal of the case. [Id. at 2-3.] Plaintiff responded to the Order, but only provided some of the proper form documents, so on June 26, 2024, Plaintiff was given an additional opportunity to bring the case into proper form. [Doc. 11.] In the Second Proper Form Order, Plaintiff was again warned that failure to provide the necessary information and paperwork within the timetable set in the Order may subject the case to dismissal. [Id. at 1.] The Second Proper Form Order also reminded Plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address and warned that failure to keep his address updated with the Court may lead to dismissal of the case. [ Id. at 2-3.] To this date, Plaintiff has neither advised the court of any changes to his address, nor responded to the Magistrate Judge's June 26, 2024, Order, and the time for response has lapsed.
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with Orders of this Court. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962).