ROBERSON v. MANCHESTER AT WESLEYAN
ROBERSON v. MANCHESTER AT WESLEYAN
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION
JEREMIAH KESHUN ROBERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-397 (MTT) ) MANCHESTER AT WESLEYAN, et. al ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )
ORDER Pro se plaintiff Jeremia Keshun Roberson filed this lawsuit against Manchester at Wesleyan and its authorized agent, Tyra Bailey. Doc. 4. Roberson also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 2. Roberson’s motion to proceed IFP was deficient and, thus, the Court denied the motion without prejudice and ordered him to re- file. Doc. 7. The time for compliance passed without a response from Roberson. As a result, Roberson was ordered to and show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 9. Roberson’s response to the show cause order was due January 24, 2025. Id. The time for compliance has again passed without a response from Roberson. The failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders and instructions is grounds for dismissing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't,
205 F. App'x 802, 802(11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,
570 F.2d 541, 544(5th Cir. 1978))1. Accordingly, Roberson’s complaint (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2025. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Reference
- Status
- Unknown