Bryan Edward Lawson v. Kimberly Bell, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION BRYAN EDWARD LAWSON, : Plaintiff, V. NO. 7:25-cv-00135-WLS-ALS KIMBERLY BELL, e¢ ai, Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Bryan Edward Lawson, a detainee in the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia, filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee, which transferred the case to this Court, ECF Nos. 1 & 7. Plaintiff also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. t & 5, Because Plaintiff failed to submit a certified copy of his trust fund account statement with his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he was ordered to submit a new motion including a certified copy of his trust fund account statement. ECF No. 10.

Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file his new motion and cautioned that his failure to do so may result in the case being dismissed. /d.

More than fourteen days passed after that order was entered, during which Plaintiff did not file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. Moreover, the order, which was sent to Plaintiff at the Irwin County Detention Center, the only address on file for Plaintiff, was returned to this Court as undeliverable with a notation that Plaintiff was no longer in that facility. ECF No. 11. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to keep this Court informed as to his current address, and insofar as this Court has no information about Plaintiffs current whereabouts, this case cannot continue.

Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the order to file a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis with an account statement and failure to keep the Court informed as to his current address. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so was likely to result in the dismissal of this case. /d.

More than fourteen days have now passed since entry of the show cause order, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this case, the complaint is now DISMISSED 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 (Sth 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_//Z_ day of March, 2026.

Lh, Z outed fee.

W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 'To date, the show cause order has not been returned to this Court as undeliverable.