Matthews v. Williams et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/3/2013. (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MAURICE D. MATTHEWS, #251986,
Plaintiff,
v.

JOHN WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-794-CSC
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Maurice D. Matthews ["Matthews"], an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action challenging general conditions of confinement present during his brief
incarceration at the Lowndes County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case
specifically directed Matthews to immediately inform the court of any change in his address.
September 18, 2012 Order - Doc. No. 4 at 5-6.
On January 3, 2013, this court issued an order, a copy of which the Clerk mailed to
Matthews. The postal service returned this order because Matthews no longer resided at the
address he last provided to the court. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order
requiring that on or before January 31, 2013 Matthews inform the court of his present
address. January 23, 2013 Order - Doc. No. 20. The order specifically advised Matthews
that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him that
his failure to comply with its directives would result in a Recommendation that this case be

dismissed.

Id. at 1.

The court has received no response from Matthews to the

aforementioned order nor has he provided the court with his current address as required by
the order of procedure.
As is clear from the foregoing, Matthews has failed to comply with the directives of
the orders entered by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence.
It likewise appears that Matthews is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case. The
court therefore concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir.1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal
for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232
Fed. Appx. 924 (11th Cir.2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's
§ 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order
directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). Consequently,
the court concludes that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders of this court and his
failure to properly prosecute this action warrant dismissal of this case.
A separate document of final judgment will accompany this memorandum opinion.
Done this 3rd day of April, 2013.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2