Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-P52-TBR
07-10-2018
JOSHUA DANIEL SCOTT PLAINTIFF v. TOMMY HENDERSON et al. DEFENDANTS
cc: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 25, 2018, this Court entered an Order (DN 30) that within 30 days Plaintiff must respond to Defendants' motion to compel and for an extension of discovery deadlines. That Order also noted that mail recently sent to Plaintiff by the Court was returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked "Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward," but that Plaintiff had filed a letter stating that he would be released from incarceration soon and providing an address for him after his release. Therefore, the Court mailed its Order to Plaintiff at both addresses. That Order warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond as directed within 30 days would result in dismissal of this action.
More than 30 days have passed. The Order sent to Plaintiff at his address of incarceration has been returned by the U.S. Postal service marked "Return to Sender, Refused, Unable to Forward." The mailing sent to Plaintiff at his address after release has not been returned. However, Plaintiff has not responded as he was ordered to do.
Courts have an inherent power "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." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecution of this case, the Court will dismiss the case by separate Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (governing involuntary dismissal). Date: July 10, 2018
/s/
Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge
United States District Court cc: Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
4413.009