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

STEVE GARRETT, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-126 (MTT) ) DEROCHE BUILDING SUPPLY, INC., ) ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Steve Garrett, through counsel, filed this lawsuit on April 19, 2021. Doc. 1. On February 1, 2022, Garrett’s counsel moved to withdraw from their representation of Garrett because he had “failed to return Counsel’s efforts to communicate with him about his case.” Doc. 16 ¶ 2. The Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Doc. 17. Concerned that Garrett no longer intended on maintaining this action, the Court ordered Garrett to show cause by March 2, 2022 why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Doc. 18. Garrett has not responded. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,” his claims may be dismissed.1 Moreover, “[t]he

1 Though Rule 41(b) by its terms applies only to dismissal on a defendant's motion, the Eleventh Circuit has “elide[d] th[e] neat distinction” between a district court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) and dismissal pursuant to its inherent authority in many of its decisions. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA,

(11th Cir. 2005); see also World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int’l Family Entm’t, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 1995) (citing Rule 41(b) as source of the district court’s authority to dismiss actions). Regardless of the source of authority, it is clear the Court may dismiss an action as a sanction for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order. authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an inherent power, governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA,

(11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Because Garrett

has failed to prosecute his case and comply with the Court’s order, dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, Garrett’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 7th day of March, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT