Opinion
NO. 5:15-CV-118-MTT-CHW
09-03-2015
LARRY ARCHIE ROUNTREE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Larry Archie Rountree, who is confined at Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but did not pay the filing fee or file a proper motion to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee. In an Order dated May 13, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement or similar certified documentation from the prison. Plaintiff was warned that his failure to comply with the Court's Order would result in dismissal of Plaintiff's action. Plaintiff was further advised that if he wished to withdraw his complaint without paying a filing fee, he should file a motion to dismiss the action. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to comply with the Court's Order. (Order 1-2, May 13, 2015, ECF No. 8.)
When the Plaintiff failed to comply, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff on July 2, 2015 to respond and show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's orders and instructions. Plaintiff's response was due within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the Order, and Plaintiff was again advised that failure to respond would result in dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Order 1-2, July 2, 2015, ECF No. 9.)
The time for responding to the Show Cause Order has passed, and Plaintiff has still failed to file a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis (including a certified copy of his prison trust account statement) as ordered by the Magistrate Judge, or any response at all to the Show Cause Order explaining why he failed to timely comply with the Magistrate Judge's May 13, 2015 Order.
Plaintiff's failure to fully and timely comply with these orders leads the Court to believe that he is no longer interested in pursuing this case. Thus, because of Plaintiff's failure to pay the required filing fee, failure to comply with the Court's instructions and orders, and failure to otherwise diligently prosecute this action, his Complaint shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 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 Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1978)).
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of September, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT