IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION DREXEL MCCURTY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00274-TES-CHW STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Drexel McCurty, a prisoner in Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to

. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2]. Plaintiff did not, however, sign either of these filings. [Doc. 1]; [Doc. 2]. Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office issued Plaintiff a notice of deficiency explaining that a party must personally sign every pleading, written motion, or other paper if that party is unrepresented. The notice informed Plaintiff that he must refile his signed documents within twenty-one days, or the Court may dismiss his complaint. More than twenty-one days passed after the Clerk’s Office directed Plaintiff to refile his signed documents, and Plaintiff did not refile those documents or otherwise

respond to the notice of deficiency. Therefore, the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file his signed complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

[Doc. 4]. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fourteen days to respond and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this action.

More than fourteen days have now passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the

show cause order. [Doc. 4]. In that time, Plaintiff has not taken any of the steps identified in the original notice of deficiency or responded to the show cause order, [Doc. 4]. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or to

otherwise prosecute this case, the Court now DISMISSES the complaint 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 Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 11th day of October, 2022. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT