DAUGHTRY v. JACKSON STATE PRISON

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders and instructions and otherwise failed to diligently prosecute his claims, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 1/7/2022. (kat)

Case 5:21-cv-00298-MTT-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RICARDO DAUGHTRY,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
VS.
:
:
JACKSON STATE PRISON,
:
:
Defendant.
:
________________________________ :

NO. 5:21-CV-00298-MTT-CHW

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Ricardo Daughtry, an inmate most recently confined in the Georgia
State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, has filed a document that has been construed as a
Complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On October 18, 2021,
Plaintiff was ordered to recast his Complaint on the Court’s standard form and to submit a
proper and complete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis if he wished to proceed
with his claims. Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) days to comply, and he was warned
that the failure to fully and timely comply with the Court’s orders and instructions could
result in the dismissal of his Complaint. See generally Order, Oct. 18, 2021, ECF No. 5.
The time for compliance passed without a response from Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff
was ordered to respond and show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for failing
to comply with the Court’s orders and instructions. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days
to comply, and he was again advised that the failure to timely and fully comply with the

Case 5:21-cv-00298-MTT-CHW Document 7 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

Court’s orders and instructions could result in the dismissal of this action. See generally
Order, Dec. 7, 2021, ECF No. 6.
The time for compliance has again passed without a response from Plaintiff.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders and instructions and
otherwise failed to diligently prosecute his claims, this action is 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)). 1
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2022
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit
handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.
1

2