CHESTER v. CLERKS OFFICE

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

CHESTER v. CLERKS OFFICE

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION KENNETH LAMAR CHESTER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00446-TES-CHW CLERK’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Kenneth Lamar Chester, an inmate at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. See [Doc. 1]; [Doc. 5]. Plaintiff also moved to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. See [Doc. 2]. On January 10, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $28.33. [Doc. 4]. Plaintiff was given 14 days to pay the fee. [Id.]. The Court informed Plaintiff that his failure to comply could result in the dismissal of his action. [Id.]. Plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing fee. Therefore, on February 10, 2022, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received his initial partial filing fee and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous instructions and orders. [Doc. 6]. Plaintiff was again given 14 days to respond. [Id.]. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff responded with a request for an extension of time to pay the partial filing

fee. [Doc. 8]. On March 15, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff a 14-day extension of time to address the filing fee. [Doc. 9]. Furthermore, the Court specifically informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to pay the fee as ordered. [Id.]. Plaintiff

has once again failed to respond and address the filing fee. Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

570 F.2d 541, 544

(5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 7th day of April, 2022. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown