ROACH v. JEFFERIES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION NATHAN AVERY ROACH, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-78-MTT-ALS : WARDEN C JEFFERIES, et al., : : Defendants. : ________________________________ : ORDER Pending before the Court is a Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Nathan Avery Roach, a prisoner currently confined in the Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On June 2, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to recast his Complaint on one of the Court’s standard forms. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 5.

The time for compliance passed without a response. As such, Plaintiff was ordered to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the June 2nd Order. Plaintiff was also again ordered to comply with the June 2nd Order if he wished to continue with his claims. Plaintiff was given another fourteen days to respond, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 6.

The time for compliance has again expired without a response from Plaintiff. 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., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2009) (first citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); and then 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, 331 F. App’x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)) (upholding dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failure to follow court’s instructions). This action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s June 2, 2025 Order.

SO ORDERED, this 12th day of August, 2025.

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