IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION WILLIAM L. BROXTON, : Plaintiff,

: No. 7:20-cv-00192-WLS-TQL HUGH LAWSON, et al., : Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff William L. Broxton, a prisoner in the Fairton Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, filed a

complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1. He did not, however, use the required civil rights complaint form. See

_ Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his, complaint on a § 1983 complaint form. Order, ECF No. 3. Additionally, Plaintiff'was ordered to either pay the Court’s filing fee

or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the required supporting documentation. Id. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to comply with the order and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action. Id. More than twenty-one days passed following the entry of that order, and Plaintiff did not file a recast complaint, pay the filing fee, move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 order to recast his complaint and either pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was again given twenty-one

days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to respond would result in the dismissal this case. Id

More than twenty-one days have now passed since entry of the show cause order, and Plaintiff not responded to that order. Moreover, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Fairton Correctional Institute — the only address on file for Plaintiff _ has been returned to this Court as undeliverable. Mail Returned, ECF No. 5. Plaintiffs failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address constitutes a failure to prosecute this case, and insofar as this Court has no information about Plaintiff's current whereabouts, this case may not proceed. □

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

(11th Cir. 2006) (“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.,

(Sth Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this Th day of February, 2022.

W. LOUIS SANDS;SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT