UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

KEVIN E. HARDAWAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV423-305 ) LT. KAPLAN, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER The Court previously directed service of pro se plaintiff Kevin E. Hardaway’s

Complaint, alleging that Defendant Kaplan was deliberately indifferent to a known threat to his safety. See doc. 14 at 3, 7. Kaplan waived personal service, doc. 18, and moved to dismiss the Complaint, doc. 21. He also moved to stay deadlines in this case pending disposition of that Motion. Doc. 22. After Hardaway failed to respond to either Motion, the Court directed him to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See doc. 23. Hardaway has failed to respond to that Order. See generally docket. A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

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

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

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

(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.” S8.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b), (c). Hardaway’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. Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and to Stay are DISMISSED as moot. Docs. 21 & 22. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of April, 2024.

( Lagto~d er CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA