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

ANTHONY T. VEAL, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : No. 5:22-cv-00335-MTT-CHW WARDEN TAMARSHE SMITH, : : Defendant. : : _________________________________:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Anthony T. Veal, a prisoner in Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a handwritten document, which he titled as a “motion to intervene.” Compl., ECF No. 1. This motion appeared to be seeking injunctive relief ordering Warden Tamarshe Smith to take certain action. See id. Plaintiff was informed that a complaint, rather than a motion, is the proper filing to commence a civil action. Order, ECF No. 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 3). Thus, if he wanted to proceed with this action, Plaintiff was ordered to submit a complaint on a

form and either pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a proper and complete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the required supporting documentation.

Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action.1 More than fourteen days passed following entry of that order, and Plaintiff did not

1Plaintiff was informed that his pending motions would be addressed once his complaint had been filed and the filing fee had been paid or any motion to proceed in forma pauperis had been resolved. Order, ECF No. 6. take any of the ordered actions or otherwise respond to the order. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed for failure

to comply with the previous order. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this action.

More than fourteen days have now passed since the show cause order was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. 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 action 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 February, 2023.

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

2