CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 06, 2024 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (\0R4 4 AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION © Is/T. Taylor DEPUTY CLERK

TEVIN EDWARD DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:23CV00243 ) V. ) OPINION ) LT. CRAFT, ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) Defendant. )

Tevin Edward Davis, Pro Se Plaintiff; John R. Fitzgerald and Jim H. Guynn, Jr., GUYNN WADDELL, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Defendant Craft. The plaintiff, Tevin Edward Davis, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

, claiming that the defendant jail officer used excessive force and denied him medical care, in violation of his constitutional rights." This court’s initial Order in the case, ECF No. 4, notified Davis of his ongoing responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current mailing address. The Order warned him that failure to comply with this requirement would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. It is self-evident that the court must have

a viable address by which to communicate reliably with Davis about this case. On July 19, 2024, the court’s mailing of ECF No. 58 was returned as undeliverable to

"Davis filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but it was transferred to this court because the alleged violations occurred at a jail facility located in this judicial district.

Davis at the address he had provided. The returned envelope indicated that authorities were unable to forward the mailing. Records online appear to indicate

that he has been released from incarceration. Based on Davis’ failure to comply with the court’s Order regarding the need to provide the court with a current mailing address that would allow reliable

communication about his case, I conclude that he is no longer interested in pursuing this civil action. Therefore, I will dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Ballard v. Carlson,

(4th Cir. 1989) (stating pro se litigants are subject to time requirements and respect for court

orders and dismissal is an appropriate sanction for non-compliance); Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,

(3d Cir. 1982) (recognizing a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). I

will also dismiss the defendant’s pending motion without prejudice. An appropriate Order will issue herewith. DATED: August 6, 2024 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge