SLATER v. THOMAS COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION JOSEPH CHANCE SLATER, : Plaintiff, : NO. 7:21-cv-00082-WLS-TQL THOMAS COUNTY : SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., : Defendants. . ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff Joseph Chance Slater, a prisoner in the Thomas County Jail in Thomasville, Georgia, filed a complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., ECF No. 1. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No.2. Thereafter, Plaintiff was ordered to file a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement for the preceding six months so that the Court could properly evaluate his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to file his account statement and was cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this action. More than twenty-one days passed following entry of the order to file the certified account et and Plaintiff did not file his account statement or otherwise respond to that order. Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file his certified account statement. Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was again given twenty-one days to respond and was cautioned that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this case. More than twenty-one days have now passed since the order to show cause was entered, and Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this case, the complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978))). SO ORDERED, this b HL. day of February , 2022. Ws here Aeeck- W. LOUIS SANDS, SRY JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .