GRIMES v. BRYSON et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice instant action. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 10/12/2016. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Commissioner HOMER BRYSON,
Plaintiff Daunterrius Grimes, while confined at Washington State Prison, filed the
instant pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order dated August 19,
2016, United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle, among other things, ordered
Plaintiff to supplement his complaint. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was warned that failure to
comply with the Court’s Order would result in dismissal of his complaint. Plaintiff was
given 21 days from the date of the August 19th Order to comply. When Plaintiff failed to
meet the deadline, Judge Weigle, on September 19, 2016, ordered Plaintiff to respond and
show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s
Orders. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff’s response was due within 14 days of the date of the
September 19th Order and Plaintiff was again advised that failure to respond would result
in dismissal of his lawsuit.
As of today’s date, Plaintiff has not filed any response or otherwise communicated
with the Court in any manner. For these reasons, and because Georgia’s two-year statute
of limitations will not prevent the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint in the near future, the
instant action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The
court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure
to obey a court order.”) (citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544
(5th Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of October, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?