Primous v. Tampa Housing Authority et al

Filing 7

ORDER: This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/5/2018. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TANISHA RENEE PRIMOUS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-398-33TGW

TAMPA HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte.

On

February 15, 2018, Plaintiff Tanisha Primous filed a pro se
Complaint against the Tampa Housing Authority, as well as
numerous other Defendants. (Doc. # 1). In connection with her
Complaint, Primous filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. # 2). On April 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.
(Doc. # 4).

The Magistrate Judge explained: “The complaint

does not articulate with any clarity the factual or legal
basis for the lawsuit. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not
established that the court has jurisdiction over her claim.”
(Id. at 2-3).
With

no

objection

to

the
1

Report

and

Recommendation

lodged, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on
May

2,

2018.

(Doc.

#

6).

The

Court

gave

Primous

the

opportunity to file an Amended Complaint by June 4, 2018, and
explained that failure to file an Amended Complaint by that
date would result in the dismissal of the case and case
closure. (Id. at 4).
Primous failed to file an Amended Complaint, and the
deadline for amendment as authorized by the Court has now
passed.

The Court accordingly dismisses his case without

prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to close the case.1

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk is

directed to CLOSE this case.

1

The record reflects that mailings sent by the Court to
Primous have been returned as “Undeliverable,” despite many
attempts to reach Primous. The Court also sent the May 2,
2018, Order to Primous via email.
However, it is Primous’s
duty to advise the Court of her current mailing address,
rather than the Court’s duty to ascertain Primous’s contact
information. See Weston v. St. Petersburg Police Dept., No.
8:09-cv-495-T-27TBM, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91798, at *4 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 9, 2010) (“A party has a duty to keep the Court
informed of his/her address.”); Lewis v. Conners Steel Co.,
673 F.2d 1240, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 1982) (“Plaintiff should be
required to assume some minimum responsibility himself for an
orderly and expeditious resolution of his dispute,” including
keeping the court and opposing counsel informed “of address
changes.”).
2

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 5th
day of June, 2018.

3