UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOSE A. DE LEON VALENTIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 4:24-cv-00626-SEP ) SENTRY SECURITY and ) THE CLUB ST. LOUIS, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On July 12, 2024, the Court denied self-represented Plaintiff Jose De Leon Valentin’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [4]. In that denial, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a new application with complete answers or pay the full filing fee. Id. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case without further notice. Plaintiff’s response was due by August 12, 2024. To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order, nor sought additional time to do so. Local Rule 2.01 authorizes the Clerk of Court to refuse to receive any pleadings “until the applicable statutory fee is paid, except in cases accompanied by a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.” E.D. Mo. L.R. 2.01(B)(1). Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor submitted a motion to proceed without prepayment. Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply. Therefore, this action is dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962) (“The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed . . . by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”); Brown v. Frey,

(8th Cir. 1986) (“A district court has the power under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order . . . .”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, Doc. [2], is DENIED as moot. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 17th day of October, 2024. □□ Ly So hat | fithyas SARAH E. PITLYK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE