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

MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-138 (MTT) ) GEOFF DUNCAN, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER On April 5, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain to recast his complaint within 21 days so that a thorough frivolity screening could be conducted pursuant to

(e). Doc. 17. Clervrain failed to file a recast complaint. 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 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, 432

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 comply with a court order. F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Because Clervrain has failed to prosecute his case and comply with the Court’s order, dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, Clervrain’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of May, 2022.

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