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

TRAVIS WILLIAMS, : : Petitioner, : : VS. : : NO. 5:25-cv-00151-MTT-CHW HOUSTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, : : Respondent. :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Pro se Petitioner Travis Williams, a prisoner in the Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under

. ECF No. 1. On May 13, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee or if indigent, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. Petitioner was given fourteen days to comply with the Court’s order.

Petitioner failed to respond. Therefore, on June 13, 2025, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to respond to an Order of the Court. ECF No. 5. Petitioner was again given fourteen days to respond.

Petitioner failed to respond. Due to Petitioner’s failure to follow the Court’s orders and his failure to prosecute this action, the case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2006) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).1 SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2025.

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

1 Rule 12 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) provides: “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules, may be applied to a proceeding under these rules.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is not inconsistent with the any of the Habeas Rules.

2