Opinion
No.: 4:14-CV-54-HSM-SKL
04-04-2016
CLAYTON OWEN NICHOLS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. LARRY BART STANLEY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
This pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was filed in the Middle District of Tennessee while Plaintiff was confined in the Lincoln County jail and, thereafter, transferred to this Court [Docs. 1, 4-5]. Upon Plaintiff's release from jail, he submitted a Notice of Change of Address [Doc. 8]. The case is now before the Court upon the postal return of legal correspondence mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the Court in that Notice [Doc. 9]. The mail was returned to the Clerk's Office by the postal authorities more than fourteen days ago, with the envelope marked, "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, and Unable to Forward" [Id.].
Obviously, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with an updated Notice of Change of Address and, without his correct and current address, neither the Court nor Defendants can communicate with him regarding his case. In fact, Local Rule 83.13 not only requires pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff, to file a written notice with the Clerk, but also requires written notice to be given to all parties, within fourteen days of any change of address.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice, sua sponte, for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing court's authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F.App'x 210, 211(6th Cir. 2002) (finding that pro se prisoner's complaint "was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised of his current address"); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
/s/ Harry S . Mattice, Jr.
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE