Opinion
5:23-cv-00215-MTT-MSH
09-20-2023
EDWIN TAYLOR UNRUH, Plaintiff, v. ROSEVELT GREEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
Plaintiff Edwin Taylor Unruh, a prisoner in Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2. Because he had not done so, Plaintiff was ordered to file a properly completed certified account statement with a printout of his account transactions. Order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was further directed that, if he could not obtain a copy of his certified account statement, he must provide this Court with written notice of the steps that he had taken to try to get the account statement. Id.
Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his account statement or written notice and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. Id. More than fourteen days passed following entry of the order for Plaintiff to file his account statement, and Plaintiff did not file the statement or otherwise respond to the order. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the previous order. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this case. Id.
More than fourteen days have now passed since the show cause order was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's orders and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED 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 Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED.