JACKSON v. HANKS
JACKSON v. HANKS
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION STEPHEN LAKEITH JACKSON, — : Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24-CV-00061-WLS-TQL v. : Sheriff DOUG HANKS, ef al, : Defendants.
ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Stephen Lakeith Jackson, a prisoner confined in Wilcox State Prison in Abbeville, Georgia, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint. ECF No. |. Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2, On June 25, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $25.93. ECF No.4. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to pay.
id.We was informed that failure to comply with an order of the court may result in dismissal of his complaint. Jd. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on July 16, 2024, 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 comply with this Court’s order. ECF No. 5. Furthermore, the Court specifically informed Plaintiff that his action could be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise pay the fee. /d. Plaintiffwas given fourteen (14) days to respond, and he has again failed todoso.
Id.Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to 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 Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,
570 F.2d 541, 544(Sth Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED, this bh day of August, 2024. W / ost i (Wig W, LOUIS SANDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown