JACKSON v. WALTON COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY

United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

JACKSON v. WALTON COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY

Trial Court Opinion

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

DONALD JEROME JACKSON, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : NO. 3:24-cv-00115-TES-CHW WALTON COUNTY : DETENTION FACILITY : MEDICAL STAFF, : : Defendant. : : _________________________________:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Donald Jerome Jackson, a detainee in the Walton County Jail in Monroe, Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Thereafter, the United States Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file a certified account statement and a recast complaint if he wanted to proceed with this action. ECF No. 4. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fourteen days to take these actions and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to do so could result in the Court dismissing this case.

Id.

More than fourteen days passed after the Magistrate Judge entered that order. In that time, Plaintiff did not submit an account statement, file a recast complaint, or otherwise respond to the order for him to do so. Thus, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an account statement or a recast complaint. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fourteen days to respond and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would likely result in the Court dismissing this case. More than fourteen days have now passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the

show cause order. Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or to otherwise prosecute his case, the Court now DISMISSES the complaint 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) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

570 F.2d 541, 544

(5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule

41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”). SO ORDERED, this 6th day of March, 2025. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Reference

Status
Unknown