LAWRENCE v. ARANGO
LAWRENCE v. ARANGO
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION
SANTARIO LAWRENCE, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 3:23-cv-00006-TES-CHW v. : : JEWSHUA ARANGO, et al., : : Defendants. : : _________________________________
DISMISSAL ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Santario Diamante Lawrence, a prisoner at Appling ITF in Baxley, Georgia, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983action. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2]. On February 24, 2023, the magistrate judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis due to Plaintiff’s ability to pay the full filing fee. [Doc. 8]. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the fee within 14 days. [Id.]. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on March 23, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. [Doc. 9]. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise address the filing fee. [Id.]. Plaintiff was given 14 days to answer. Plaintiff has failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his complaint 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) (“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.,
570 F.2d 541, 544(5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 14th day of April, 2023. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III., JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown