IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION ANDRE TURK, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:24-cv-00354-TES STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant.

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Andre Turk filed a Complaint [Doc. 1] on October 1, 2024. However, his Complaint contains only Plaintiff’s name and contact information, and it lacks the signature required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). See [Doc. 1, p. 3]. Additionally, Plaintiff neither paid the $402.00 filing fee nor requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On November 14, 2024, the Court issued an Order [Doc. 8] identifying these deficiencies and providing Plaintiff with clear instructions for addressing them. Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed IFP and to file a signed amended complaint by December 16, 2024. [Doc. 8, p. 2]. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that “failure to fully and timely comply” with these directives could “result in the dismissal of this action.” [Id.]. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion [Doc. 9] seeking to amend his name on court filings. The Court denied that Motion the same day, noting that “until Andre Turk provides proof of his license to practice law [and] is admitted to practice in

this court, the Court will not accept any filings purported to be filings on behalf of a client.” [Doc. 10]. Despite the Court’s clear instructions and warnings, Plaintiff has made no effort

to comply with the Court’s directives. To date, he has not paid the filing fee, filed a motion to proceed IFP, or submitted a signed amended complaint. See [Doc. 8]. Moreover, he has provided no evidence that he is licensed to practice law or admitted

to practice in this Court. See [Doc. 10]. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the most fundamental procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and has ignored the Court’s orders, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] without prejudice.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua

sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”). SO ORDERED, this 28th day of December, 2024. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT