Neville v. Neville

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing without prejudice re 1 Complaint filed by R. Alec Neville. Objections to R&R due by 6/4/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/21/2013. (loh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION R. ALEC NEVILLE, M.D., heir to estates, Plaintiff, v. JOSIAH NEVILLE, Estate Administrator, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV613-049 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On April 29, 2013, the Clerk sent pro se plaintiff R. Alec Neville a filing fee deficiency notice explaining that he had failed to comply with the Court’s Disclosure Statement requirement set forth in Local Rule 7.1.1. Doc. 3. The docket reflects that a service copy of the notice was mailed to Neville at the jail address he provided. The notice was returned as undeliverable on May 15, 2013. Doc. 4 (return to sender envelope bearing this message: “Released”). Petitioner has neglected to provide the Court with a current mailing address. Local Rule 11.1 places a continuing duty on pro se litigants to keep the Court apprised of their current address. Without a litigant’s current mailing address, the Court cannot move the case forward or even communicate with petitioner. A court has the power to prune from its docket those cases that amount to no more than mere deadwood. Accordingly, Neville’s complaint should be DISMISSED without prejudice for his failure to prosecute this action. S.D. Ga. LR 41(b); see Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co- op , 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States , No. CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of May, 2013. CMIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?