WILLIAMS v. JEANES et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 25 Report and Recommendations.Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 5/16/2014 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
DEMPSEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVIS WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.: 1:13-CV-96 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas Q. Langstaff in this excessive force and deliberate indifference case brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 25.) Defendants’ Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss
sought to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim.

(Doc. 14.)

Defendants’

Supplemental Motion to Dismiss sought to dismiss this case for failure to prosecute.
(Doc. 22.) In the Recommendation, Judge Langstaff recommends that the Court deny as
moot Defendant’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) and grant Defendants’
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22).

Plaintiff did not file a response to

Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and has not filed an objection.

(See

generally Docket.) The time to do so has elapsed.
The last two orders of the Court have been returned as undeliverable and
Defendants present evidence that Plaintiff has been released. (See Doc. 22-2.) Plaintiff
has not filed any document in this Court since September 30, 2013, and failed to
respond to Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, although he was ordered to
do so. (See Doc. 23.) In light of Plaintiff’s inaction in this matter, the Court agrees with
Judge Langstaff’s finding that there is a clear record of delay or willful contempt by
Plaintiff. Accordingly, this action is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
1

Upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that Judge
Langstaff’s Recommendation (Doc. 25) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and
reasons stated therein, together with the reasons stated and conclusions reached herein.
Thus, Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED and
Defendant’s Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED, this 16th day of May 2014.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2