ARNOLD v. TUCKER

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

ARNOLD v. TUCKER

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

WILLIAM EDGAR : RYAN ARNOLD, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : NO. 5:24-cv-00395-MTT-AGH Nurse TUCKER, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________: ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff William Edgar Ryan Arnold, a prisoner in Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a pro se

42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Plaintiff did not, however, sign his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result, the Clerk’s office issued Plaintiff a notice of deficiency, informing him that he must refile a signed copy of his motion if he wanted this case to continue. The Clerk’s office gave Plaintiff fourteen days to sign and refile his motion and cautioned him that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. More than fourteen days passed following the entry of the notice of deficiency, during which Plaintiff did not file a signed motion or otherwise respond to the notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file a signed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this case.

Id.

More than fourteen days have now passed since the show cause order was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to

respond to the Court’s orders and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be 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) (per curiam) (“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

(5th Cir. 1978)).

SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2025.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Reference

Status
Unknown