IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMERON WILKERSON, ) AIS 312444, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-06-WKW ) [WO] KILBY DEP. OF CORRECTIONS, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at Kilby Correctional Facility, filed this action under

. He also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis but failed to submit the required information regarding his inmate account. As a result, he was ordered to submit an inmate account statement by January 22, 2025, and warned that a failure to comply would ultimately result in dismissal. (See Doc. # 2.) The January 22 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to the court’s Order. Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. See Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (providing that “dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of discretion”) (citations omitted). The authority of courts to impose sanctions for failure to prosecute or obey an order is longstanding and acknowledged by Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash R. Co.,

, 629–30 (1962). This authority “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.”

It further

empowers the courts “to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”

at 630–31. In this case, the court finds that sanctions lesser than dismissal would not suffice. See Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-Op of Fla.,

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Final judgment will be entered separately.

DONE this 13th day of March, 2025. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE