□□□□□□□ OFFICE US. DISTRICT COU IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA April 16, 2025 ROANOKE DIVISION [BYs9) □□□□□□ Deputy

TERRENCE RYCROFT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV00171 ) V. ) OPINION ) FRANK DYER, ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) Defendant. )

Terrence Rycroft, Pro Se. The plaintiff, proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action pursuant to

, alleging that jail officials have not accommodated his Muslim religious beliefs, in violation of his constitutional rights.” On March 12, 2025, the court entered an Order conditionally filing the case, requiring him to return certain financial information, and warning Rycroft that failure to keep the Court informed of his current mailing address would result in dismissal of the case without prejudice. The Court mailed Rycroft a copy of that Order to the address he had provided on the Complaint. But on April 3, 2025, that mailing was returned to the Court marked as undeliverable, with no ability to forward the mailing. It is

Rycroft filed his § 1983 Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, but the case was transferred here because the jail in question is located within this judicial district.

self-evident that the Court must have a viable address by which to communicate reliably with Rycroft about this case.

Based on Rycroft’s failure to provide the Court with a current and usable mailing address, 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. 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). An appropriate Order will issue herewith.

DATED: April 16, 2025 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge