UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

ARAMIS MANN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV621-055 ) BRIAN ADAMS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER The Court previously granted pro se plaintiff Aramis Mann’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5. He was directed to return several forms, and the Court granted his request to extend the deadline to comply. See doc. 8. He returned one of the forms within the extended deadline. Doc. 9. When he did not return the second form, the Court directed him to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. Doc. 10. Mann has failed to respond to that Order, and the time for doing so has long since expired. 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.” 8.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b), (c). The Court’s prior Order expressly warned Mann of the consequences of failing to comply with its instructions. See doc. 10 at 3. Mann’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 15th day of May, 2024.

highend. lees CHRISTOPHER L. RA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA