THORNTON v. BRYSON et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 7/31/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Commissioner HOMER BRYSON;
Pro se Plaintiffs Roderick Thornton, Timothy Dawkins, Erik Williams, Alfonzo
Tippins, and Alex Cotton, all of whom are prisoners confined at Hancock State Prison in
Sparta, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in this Court on November 14, 2016.
ECF No. 1.
They complained of various conditions of confinement in the Tier II
disciplinary program at Hancock State Prison. ECF No. 1 at 7.
On January 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge informed the Plaintiffs that pro se
inmates are not permitted to join their claims together in a single lawsuit. ECF No. 8.
The Court severed the claims and opened separate civil actions for each Plaintiff. ECF
No. 8 at 2. Roderick Thornton was allowed to proceed in this case, i.e., Civil Action No.
In a “declaration” attached to the original complaint, Thornton stated that he had
been subjected to on-going “inhumane conditions” in the Tier II disciplinary program
starting in July 2016. ECF No. 1-1 at 9. The Magistrate Judge determined that more
information was necessary to process Thornton’s claims and, therefore, informed Thornton
that he needed to file an amended complaint using the Court’s standard § 1983 form. ECF
No. 8 at 2. He was told to seek relief only for his own injuries and was instructed how to
proceed with his claims.
ECF No. 8 at 2-3.
The Magistrate Judge also granted
Thornton’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the full filing fee, but ordered him to
pay an initial partial filing fee of $5.33. ECF No. 8 at 4. Thornton was given twenty-one
days from January 24, 2017 to submit the amended complaint and pay the initial partial
filing fee. Id. He was informed that failure to comply, or notify the Court why he was
unable to comply, would result in dismissal of his action. Id.
Thornton failed to respond. On April 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered
Thornton to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply.
Again, Thornton was informed that failure to respond would result in dismissal of his civil
action. ECF No. 9. Thornton failed to respond to the April 12, 2017 Order. Id.
Because Thornton has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute
his case, this action is 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 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 31st day of July, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL
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?