IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ESKER MARTIN III PLAINTIFF

v. Case No: 4:21-cv-00159 JM-PSH

MARYETTE JACKSON DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Esker Martin III filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to

, on March 1, 2021 (Doc. No. 2). In its initial order to Martin, the Court notified him of his duty to promptly notify the Clerk and the parties of any change in his address; the Court also notified Martin that if any communication from the Court to him is not responded to within 30 days, his case may be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 3. On January 18, 2022, mail sent to Martin was returned as undeliverable, and the envelope was entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 57. The Court entered a text order that day notifying Martin that mail could not be delivered to him because he was no longer at the address he provided. Doc. No. 58. Martin was directed to provide notice of his current mailing address by no later than thirty days from the entry of the January 18 text order. He was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address may cause his complaint to be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to him at his last known address. More than 30 days have passed, and Martin has not complied or otherwise responded to the January 18 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s orders. See Miller v. Benson,

(8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion). It is therefore ordered that Martin’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. DATED this 16" day of March, 2022.

UNITED S FATES fh JUDGE