CRUTCHLEY v. LOWNDES COUNTY JAIL ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION ADAM WADE CRUTCHLEY, : Plaintiff, : NO. 7:23-CV-00017-WLS-TQL VS. : LOWNDES COUNTY JAIL, □ SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, : Defendants. ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Adam Wade Crutchley, an inmate at the Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the Northern District of Georgia. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without the statutorily required supporting documents. ECF No. 2. Plaintiffs civil action was transferred to this Court. See ECF Nos. 3 and 4. On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and was provided instructions on how to do so, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was further ordered to either submit the statutorily required documents to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action. Jd. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on April 3, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a recast complaint nor was the filing fee and incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis addressed. ECF No.7. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. Jd, The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed ifhe failed to comply with this Court’s orders. /d. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. /d. Plaintiff once again did not respond, Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“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 (Sth Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this -267dday of April, 2023. W; fo Gwe arate W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT