WALKER v. BUTTS

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/28/2017. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
ANTONIO ANDRE WALKER,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
VS.
:
:
DR. BUTTS,
:
:
Defendant.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:16-CV-00478-MTT-MSH

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Antonio Andre Walker, who was most recently confined at the
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison in Jackson, Georgia, filed a Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that she was being denied medical treatment she
requires as a transgender female. In an Order dated February 2, 2017, the United States
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that she had failed to allege sufficient facts to show
that the sole named Defendant in this case was deliberately indifferent to her serious
medical needs. The Magistrate Judge thus directed Plaintiff to amend her Complaint by
recasting her statement of claims. Plaintiff was warned that her failure to comply with
the Magistrate Judge’s Order could result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff was
further advised to immediately notify the Court in writing of any change in her mailing
address. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s
Order. ECF No. 5 at 2-4, 5.
The time for compliance passed without a response from Plaintiff. Thus, on
March 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why

her lawsuit should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and
instructions. Plaintiff was again given twenty-one (21) days to respond, warned that
failure to respond would result in the dismissal of her Complaint, and reminded of her
obligation to inform the Court of any address change. ECF No. 6 at 1-2.
The time for compliance again passed with no response from Plaintiff.

In

addition, the Court’s order to show cause was returned as undeliverable. See ECF No. 7.
Accordingly, because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s instructions and
orders, her failure to otherwise diligently prosecute this action, and because it does not
appear her claims would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations, her Complaint
shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also Brown v.
Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“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 28th day of April, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2