Opinion
7:23-CV-58 (WLS)
08-18-2023
TIMOTHY S. MALLARD JR., Plaintiff, v. BROOKS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
On May 09, 2023, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2023, this Court found that Plaintiff s initial Complaint (Doc. 1) failed to plead allegations sufficient to withstand scrutiny under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint within 21 days to avoid dismissal. (Doc. 3).
On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. 4), however, again failed to plead allegations sufficient to withstand scrutiny under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Despite this failure, this Court gave Plaintiff another chance to amend his complaint to avoid dismissal and, on July 20, 2023, ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint (Doc. 4) within 21 days in order to avoid dismissal. (Doc. 5).
More than 21 days has passed since this Court's second order for Plaintiff to amend his complaint (Doc. 5) without any response from Plaintiff. Plaintiff was noticed that his complaint could be dismissed without further notice or proceeding for failure to comply with the Court's order. (Doc. 5). Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's orders or otherwise prosecute this case, the complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Lopez, v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978))).
Based on the foregoing
SO ORDERED.