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

NATHANIEL MARTENZ PLAINTIFF ADC #182324

v. Case No: 2:25-cv-00097-JM-PSH

STEPHEN LANE DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff Nathaniel Martenz filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to

, on May 19, 2025 (Doc. No. 1). On May 21, 2025, the Court entered an order directing Martenz to submit the full $405.00 filing and administrative fees or file a fully completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application within 30 days. See Doc. No. 2. The order was returned as undeliverable with a notation that Martenz had refused his mail. See Doc. No. 3. The Court resent the order and a blank IFP form on June 23, 2025. See Doc. No. 4. Martenz was cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order within 30 days would result in the dismissal of his case. More than 30 days have passed, and Martenz has not complied or otherwise responded to the June 23 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,

, 168 (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 Martenz’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 1* day of August, 2025.

wai ED ht | __ JUDGE