HALL v. HOLCOMB

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

HALL v. HOLCOMB

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION URIAH WADE HALL, : Plaintiff, □ Case No. 7:22-CV-00096-WLS-TQL

JAMES HOLCOMB, . Proceedings Under

42 U.S.C. §1983

: Before the U. 8S. Magistrate Judge Defendants.

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Uriah Wade Hall, an inmate confined in the Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, Georgia filed a42U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. ECF No.1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without the statutory supporting documents. ECF No. 2. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and was provided detailed instructions on how to doso, ECF No.4. Plaintiff was further ordered to either submit the statutory documents to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. /d. Plaintiffwas given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. /d, Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on October 18, 2022, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received

a recast complaint nor was the filing fee and incomplete motion to proceed im forma pauperis addressed. ECF No. 5. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order, Jd.

The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed ifhe failed to comply with this Court’s orders. /d. Plaintiffwas given fourteen (14) days to respond. id. Plaintiff once again did not respond. Because Piaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown y, Tallahassee Police Dep't,

205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006) (“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.,

570 F.2d 541, 544

(Sth Cir. 1978)).

SO ORDERED, this (€4 day of November, 2022,

W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown