Aiden Joshua Petit-Frere v. Alan Wilson

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Aiden Joshua Petit-Frere, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-13161-JDA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) Alan Wilson, ) ) Defendant. ) Plaintiff Aiden Joshua Petit-Frere, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 November 17, 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 3.] Plaintiff did not respond to the Order, so on December 16, 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 November 17, 2025, or December 16, 2025, Orders, 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., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). s/Jacquelyn D Austin United States District Judge January _9__, 2026 Greenville, South Carolina