From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Bostick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 23, 2019
C/A No. 9:19-1794-BHH-TER (D.S.C. Sep. 23, 2019)

Opinion

C/A No. 9:19-1794-BHH-TER

09-23-2019

Reco Miller, #310609, a/k/a Reco Lamont Miller, #310609, Plaintiff, v. Margaret Bostick, Jasper County Clerk of Court, Warden Cohen, D.S.S.C. Warden Bucken, Defendants.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner. This case is before the Court due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with prior orders of the Court dated August 2, 2019 and August 28, 2019. (ECF Nos. 6, 15.) Plaintiff has filed three different unsigned, and at times, disjointed, incomplete, and illegible complaints in this action. (See ECF Nos. 1, 13, 20.) The Court has repeatedly ordered Plaintiff to follow all instructions on the complaint form and answer all questions in their entirety on the complaint form. The Court ordered Plaintiff to sign the complaint form and "briefly state the facts of claim against the parties you intend to name as defendants and state what relief you request." (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with such orders.

Plaintiff has a history with this Court of noncompliance. See No. 4:15-21-BHH, No. 4:16-2899-BHH, No. 4:18-2135-BHH, No. 4:18-cv-00205-BHH, No. 4:18-cv-0862-BHH, 4:19-1552-BHH. Plaintiff has filed a multitude of documents and cases with state courts. On February 22, 2016, the Court of Common Pleas of the Sixth Judicial Circuit restricted Plaintiff from future filings due to the repetitive and frivolous nature of his numerous filings. Miller v. South Carolina, 2013-CP-29-1253.

Plaintiff's lack of appropriate responses to the Court's orders indicates an intent to not prosecute this case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district courts may dismiss an action if a Plaintiff fails to comply with an order of the court); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court may dismiss sua sponte); see also Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) ("district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets").

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Any outstanding motions shall be deemed moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Bruce H. Hendricks

United States District Judge September 23, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Miller v. Bostick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 23, 2019
C/A No. 9:19-1794-BHH-TER (D.S.C. Sep. 23, 2019)
Case details for

Miller v. Bostick

Case Details

Full title:Reco Miller, #310609, a/k/a Reco Lamont Miller, #310609, Plaintiff, v…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Sep 23, 2019

Citations

C/A No. 9:19-1794-BHH-TER (D.S.C. Sep. 23, 2019)