RUSHIN v. CALDWELL et al

Filing 5

ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 8/18/2017. (lap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RONALD EARLE RUSHIN,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
VS.
:
:
WARDEN CALDWELL, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:17-CV-00183-CAR-MSH

ORDER
Plaintiff Ronald Earle Rushin, a prisoner most recently confined in the Coffee
Correctional Facility in Nicholls, Georgia, has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On May 12, 2017, the Court advised Plaintiff in a
“notice of deficiency” that in order to proceed with this action, he must either pay the
$400.00 required filing fee or submit a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The notice gave Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to comply with the notice and
further advised Plaintiff that if he did not comply, his action could be dismissed.
The time for compliance passed, and Plaintiff failed to respond to the notice of
deficiency. The United States Magistrate Judge therefore ordered Plaintiff to respond
and show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s orders and instructions. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to respond and
was again warned that failure to comply with an order of this Court is grounds for
dismissal. ECF No. 4 at 1-2.

The time for compliance has again passed without a response from Plaintiff.
Because Plaintiff has failed to pay the required filing fee, failed to comply with the
Court's instructions and orders, and otherwise failed to diligently prosecute his claims,
and because the statute of limitations would not appear to bar the refiling of his claims if
he acts promptly to take such action, his 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 18th day of August, 2017.

S/ C. Ashley Royal
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2