IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA . VALDOSTA DIVISION MARK PURCELL FELDER, : Plaintiff, v. Case No. 7:24-cy-123-WLS-ALS CHARLIE MARCUS, et al., □ Defendants.

Pending before the Court is 8 Complaint (CF No, 1) filed by pro se Plan Ma

Pateell Felder, an individual who was incarcerated in the Valdosta State Prison in Valdosta, Georgia at the time the Complaint was filed March 4, 2025, the Court noted that Plaintiff was released from prison.on February 02, 2025, but he did not notify the Court of □

this fact or provide the Court with his new mailing address. The Court reasoned that this case could not proceed if the Court had no way to communicate with Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed, Plaintiff was

sven fates (14 dys oh dt ofthe Ordero pond and was wed □□□□□

| failure to respond would ily result in the dismissal ofthis ease, The Court directed the to mail a copy ofthe March 4th Order to Plaintiff at his last known mailing □□□□□□□ at the Valdosta State Prison. See generally ECF No. ‘The time for compliance has now passed without a response, A district court has authority to manage its: docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and this authority includes

the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the court’s orders. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc.,

(1 ith Cir, 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)) (finding court did not err in dismissing the third amended complaint for failure to follow the court’s instructions regarding how to amend the complaint). Dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the litigant has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't,

(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir, 1989) (ipholding disinissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner's complaint □ low ons), This aon hee DISMISSED witout □ prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's March 4, 2025 Order and failed to prosecute this case by keeping the Court informed of his current mailing address. Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF No. 2, 4) are DENIED as moot. | IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 2025,