VYAS et al v. MAYORKAS et al

Filing 5

ORDER. As previously warned, the failure to comply with the Court's orders and instructions is grounds for dismissing this case. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Ordered by CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 5/13/2024. (kat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
VARSHABEN VYAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-493 (MTT)

ORDER
On December 8, 2023, Plaintiffs Varshaben Vyas, Ashishkumar Vyas, and
Vishwakumar Vyas filed this action for mandamus relief. Doc. 1. On March 19, 2024,
there was no evidence in the record of service on the defendants, so the Court ordered
plaintiffs’ counsel to advise the Court, no later than April 2, 2024, as to the status of the
efforts to serve the defendants, and to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to timely serve the defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m). Doc. 3.
Nothing was filed. Accordingly, the Court again ordered the plaintiffs to show cause no
later than May 7, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to serve the
defendants and comply with the Court’s Order. Doc. 4. Both orders warned that failure
to comply could result in dismissal of this action. Docs. 3 at 1; 4 at 2.
The time for compliance has again passed without a response. As previously
warned, the failure to comply with the Court’s orders and instructions is grounds for
dismissing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see also 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
Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)). 1
Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this 13th day of May, 2024.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered
prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
1

-2-