ROUNTREE v. REESE et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Complaint for failure to comply and diligently prosecute the case. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/21/2016. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
LARRY ARCHIE ROUNTREE,
Ms. TRUEBLOOD, and
This case is currently before the Court due to Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply
with the orders of this Court. On May 12, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Larry Archie Roundtree,
an inmate confined at Central State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, was ordered to (1)
submit a certified copy of his trust account statement to support his claim of indigence and
(2) recast his statement of claims. See Order, May 12, 2016, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was
given twenty-one days to comply and warned that a failure to comply with an order of the
court could result in the dismissal of his complaint. Id. The time allowed for compliance
nonetheless expired without any response from Plaintiff. The United States Magistrate
Judge thus ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why his lawsuit should not be
dismissed for failure to comply. See Show Cause Order, July 15, 2016 (ECF No. 9).
Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond to the Show Cause Order and advised that
failure to do so would “result in the immediate dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant
to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” without further warning. Id.
The time for filing a response to the Show Cause Order has now passed; and
Plaintiff has not yet complied with either order of the Court. This Court has in fact not
received any correspondence from Plaintiff since his case was transferred here from the
Northern District of Georgia on April 25, 2016 (ECF No. 5).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
his failure to comply and diligently prosecute his case.1 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570
F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)).
SO ORDERED this 21st day of September, 2016.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff’s claims arise out of conduct that was ongoing when he signed his complaint on March
10, 2016. Thus, it does not appear that any statute of limitations would bar his claim.
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?