Hines v. Meeks et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 8/18/14. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONALD HINES, #156086,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS MEEKS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-1042-WC
[WO]

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronald Hines (“Hines”), an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
challenging the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him during a prior term of
incarceration at the Covington County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case
specifically directed Hines to immediately inform the court of any change in his address.
March 12, 2013 Order - Doc. No. 8 at 6.
The court recently obtained information indicating that Hines was not currently at the
address he last provided for service. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order
requiring that on or before August 15, 2014 Hines inform the court of his present address.
August 5, 2014 Order - Doc. No. 57. The order specifically advised Hines 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 the dismissal of this case. Id. The postal service
returned this document as undeliverable.

As is clear from the foregoing, Hines 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 Hines 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
F. App’x 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 judgment shall issue.
Done this 18th day of August, 2014.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2