Levy v. McKinny

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Levy v. McKinny

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

CHARLES C. LEVY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV424-138 ) VANEAL MCKINNY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Charles C. Levy brought this apparent

42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against several private individuals with whom he was in conflict. See doc. 1 at 5-8. The Court granted Levy’s request to pursue his case in forma pauperis (IFP), doc. 4, and ordered him to return the necessary forms by August 22, 2024,

id. at 4-5

. Levy then consented to plenary disposition of his case by the undersigned United States magistrate judge. See docs. 7 & 8; see also

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c). Levy filed his consent to collection of fees from his prisoner trust account with the Court on July 15, 2024.1 Doc. 6.

1 Pursuant to the “prison mailbox rule,” Levy’s form is deemed filed on the date he signed it. See, e.g., Washington v. United States,

243 F.3d 1299, 1301

(11th Cir. 2001). However, he never filed his prisoner trust account statement form. See generally, docket.

A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

370 U.S. 626, 630-31

(1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op,

864 F.2d 101

, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham,

709 F.2d 1457, 1458

(11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept.,

205 F. App’x 802, 802

(11th Cir. 2006). Under

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be dismissed either for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with an order of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Additionally, this Court’s Local Rules

provide that the Court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution when a party has “willful[ly] disobe[yed] . . . any order of the Court” or for “[a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable

promptness.” S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b), (c). The Court’s prior Order expressly warned Levy of the consequences of failing to comply with its instructions. See doc. 4 at 5. Levy’s failure to prosecute this case and

failure to respond to the Court’s Order warrant dismissal. Accordingly, his Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and failing to prosecute his case. Doc. 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of October, 2024. Lon. CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Reference

Status
Unknown