Opinion
5:24-cv-00151-MTT-TQL
07-16-2024
GARY HOLLINGSHED, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff DAVID DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Gary Hollingshed filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee nor did he request leave to proceed without prepayment of the fee. On June 5, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee or if indigent, submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply with an order of the Court could result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Therefore, on June 27, 2024, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis as ordered. ECF No. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's previous order. Id. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to comply with this Court's orders. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id. Plaintiff once again did not respond.
Additionally, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Bibb County Jail address provided by him has been returned to the Court with a notation indicating that he may no longer be incarcerated at that facility. ECF Nos. 4 and 6. The Plaintiff has not otherwise notified the Court of his current address.
Due to Plaintiff's failure to follow the Court's orders, failure to keep the Court updated with his address, and failure to prosecute this action, this civil action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).
SO ORDERED.