TAYLOR v. OLIVER et al

Filing 6

ORDER of Dismissal without prejudice re 1 Complaint filed by DAIJUAN TAIKAIN TAYLOR. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 11/13/2023. (vs)

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

DAIJUAN TAIKAIN TAYLOR, :
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner TYRONE OLIVER,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 5:23-CV-00337-TES-CHW

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Daijuan Taikain Taylor, a prisoner confined in Macon State Prison
in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without the statutory supporting
documents. [Doc. 2]. On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his
complaint and was provided detailed instructions on how to do so. [Doc. 4]. Plaintiff
was further ordered to either submit the statutory documents to support his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. [Id.]. Plaintiff was given 14 days to
respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this
action. [Id.]. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Therefore, on October 19, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not
received a recast complaint nor was the incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis

addressed. [Doc. 5]. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. [Id.]. The Court
unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to
comply with this Court’s orders. [Id.]. Plaintiff was given 14 days to respond. [Id.].
Plaintiff did not respond.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise
prosecute his case, the Court DISMISSES the claims in his Complaint without
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802,
802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez
v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may
dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a
court order.”); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing without prejudice
prisoner’s pro se § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with court order to file amended
complaint where order expressly informed prisoner of deficiencies in his complaint and
rules that he needed to follow in filing amended complaint).
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2023.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III,
TILMAN E. SELF, III., JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2