Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00442-TES-MSH
02-08-2024
LANORRIS MOORE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
Plaintiff Lanorris Moore, a prisoner in Smith State Prison in Glennville, Georgia, filed a Complaint, alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff did not either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. Therefore, the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to either pay the full filing fee or file a proper and complete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis if he wanted to proceed with this action. [Doc. 3]. The magistrate judge also ordered Plaintiff to recast his complaint. [Id.]. The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff 14 days to take these actions and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. [Id.].
More than 14 days passed after the magistrate judge entered that order, and Plaintiff did not file a recast complaint, pay the filing fee, move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise respond to the order. As a result, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case based on his failure to comply with the earlier order. [Doc. 4]. The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff another 14 days to respond and cautioned him that his failure to do so would likely result in the Court dismissing this action. [Id.].
Again, more than 14 days have now passed since the magistrate judge issued the show cause order, and Plaintiff has not responded to that either. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the previous orders or to otherwise prosecute his case, the Court now DISMISSES his Complaint [Doc. 1] without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); 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 then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED.