IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

Matthew Brannon, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-06847-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Kathy White, Shana Peeler, ) ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff Matthew Brannon, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this case pursuant to

. [Doc. 1.] In signing the Complaint, Plaintiff acknowledged that he was responsible for notifying the Clerk in writing of any change of address and that failure to keep his address updated with the court may lead to dismissal of the case. [Id. at 12.] In accordance with

(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. By Order dated July 24, 2025, Plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the necessary information to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. [Doc. 7.] Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information and paperwork within the timetable set in the Order may subject the case to dismissal. [Id. at 2.] The Order also reminded Plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address and warned that failure to keep his address updated with the Court may lead to dismissal of the case. [Id. at 2–3.] Plaintiff did not respond to the Order. By Order dated August 21, 2025, Plaintiff was given an additional opportunity to bring the case into proper form. [Doc. 11.] In the Second Proper Form Order, Plaintiff was again warned that failure to provide the necessary information and paperwork within the timetable set in the Order may subject the case to dismissal. [Id. at 1.] The Second Proper Form Order also reminded Plaintiff to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address and warned that failure to keep his address updated with the Court may lead to dismissal of the case. [Id. at 2.] To this date, Plaintiff has neither advised the court of any

changes to his address, nor responded to the Magistrate Judge’s August 21, 2025, Order, and the time for response has lapsed. Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and has failed to comply with Orders of this Court. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962). s/Jacquelyn D Austin United States District Judge September _1_1_, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina