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

RODRIQUEZ CHARLESTON, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : NO. 5:21-cv-00442-MTT-CHW CAPTAIN JOHN GARY, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Rodriquez Charleston, a pretrial detainee in the Twiggs County Jail in Jeffersonville, Georgia, filed a complaint under

. Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not either pay the Court’s $402.00 filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thus, if he wanted to proceed with this action, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was also ordered to file a recast complaint.

Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his recast complaint and either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Additionally, he was cautioned that his failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of this action.

More than twenty-one days passed after Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and he did not take any of these actions or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 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 previous order. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action.

More than fourteen days have passed since the order to show cause was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order or taken any of the steps identified in the previous orders. Additionally, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Twiggs County Jail – the only address on file for Plaintiff – has been returned to this Court as undeliverable. Mail Returned, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address constitutes a failure to prosecute his case, and insofar as this Court has no information as to Plaintiff’s

current whereabouts, this case cannot proceed. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby ORDERED that this complaint be 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 10th day of March, 2022.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2