Opinion
5:20-cv-00466-MTT-CHW
06-10-2021
EDWARD PITT, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, Defendant.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
Pro se Plaintiff Edward Pitt, an inmate at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a handwritten document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee nor submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on a § 1983 form and to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Therefore, on May 20, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply and diligently prosecute his claims. ECF No. 4. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and he failed to do so.
Due to Plaintiff's failure to follow the Court's Orders and to prosecute this action, the case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Brown v. Talla hassee 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