BAKER v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE re 1 Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 03/10/2025. (aen)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
CAMARON BAKER,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
V.
:
:
WALTON COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
_________________________________:

NO. 3:24-cv-00102-TES-CHW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Camaron Baker, a detainee in the Walton County Jail in Monroe, Georgia,
filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Nos. 1 & 5. Plaintiff also
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2 & 6. Thereafter, the
United States Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $7.95. ECF No. 7. The
Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff fourteen days to pay the fee and cautioned Plaintiff that his
failure to do so could result in the Court dismissing this case. Id.
More than fourteen days passed after the Magistrate Judge entered the order to pay
the initial partial filing fee. In that time, Plaintiff did not pay the initial partial filing fee
or otherwise respond to the order for him to do so. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not dismiss this case based on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the initial partial filing fee. The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff
fourteen days to respond and cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to respond would likely
result in the Court dismissing this case.
More than fourteen days have now passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the

show cause order. Plaintiff has not responded to that order. Thus, because Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, the Court now
DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown
v Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first
citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570
F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule
41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of March, 2025.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2