PARKER v. WILLIAMS et al

Filing 7

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 9/24/2024. (kat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
VRAIMONE PARKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden JOE WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 5:24-CV-00177-MTT-TQL

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Vraimone Germaine Parker, a prisoner confined in the Georgia
Diagnostic & Classifications Prison in Jackson, Georgia filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis without
the statutory supporting documents. ECF No. 3. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff was
ordered to recast his complaint and was provided specific instructions on how to do so.
ECF No. 5. 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 fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s order and was informed that
failure to comply could result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond.
Therefore, on August 28, 2024, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received
a recast complaint nor was the incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis addressed.
ECF No. 6. 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 could be dismissed if he failed to comply
with this Court’s orders. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id.
Plaintiff has not responded.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise
prosecute his case, this complaint 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)); 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 24th day of September, 2024.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2