IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION

DAWUAN MUDD, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : NO. 4:21-cv-00175-CDL-MSH GEORGIA DEPARTMENT : OF CORRECTIONS, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Dawuan Mudd filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a prisoner motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2. Although Plaintiff listed the Rutledge State Prison in Columbus, Georgia, as his place of confinement when he filed the complaint, Plaintiff also indicated that his parole was pending as of September 30, 2021, and that communications from the Court should be sent to a residential address in Kentucky. See Compl. 1, ECF No. 1; Attach. to Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-1. Thus, it appeared that Plaintiff may no longer be incarcerated. In order to clarify Plaintiff’s incarceration status, Plaintiff was ordered to file either a non-prisoner motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or a notice informing the Court if he remained incarcerated. Order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action.

More than twenty-one days passed following entry of that order, and Plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to respond and show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the order to clarify

his incarceration status. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his response and was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action.

More than fourteen days have now passed since the order to show cause was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond

to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this case, his complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(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.,

(5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 18th day of January, 2022.

S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA