McCarty II v. Hopkins County Kentucky et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. For the reason set forth herein, the instant action will be dismissed by separate Order. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants (JLS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT OWENSBORO
ROGER DALE MCCARTY II
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13CV-P133-M
HOPKINS COUNTY KENTUCKY et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered July 3, 2014, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit completed summons
forms for two Defendants within 21 days from entry of the Order (DN 10). On July 28, 2014,
the U.S. Postal Service returned Plaintiff’s copy of the Order to the Court (DN 11). The
envelope was marked “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable As Addressed, Unable to Forward,”
and a handwritten notation indicated, “Not Here.”
Upon filing the instant action, Plaintiff assumed the responsibility to keep this Court
advised of his current address and to actively litigate his claims. See Local Rule 5.2(d) (“All pro
se litigants must provide written notice of a change of address to the Clerk and to the opposing
party or the opposing party’s counsel. Failure to notify the Clerk of an address change may
result in the dismissal of the litigant’s case or other appropriate sanctions.”). Because Plaintiff
has not provided any notice of an address change to the Court, neither orders or notices from this
Court nor filings by Defendants can be served on him.
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the involuntary dismissal
of an action if a plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with an order of the court. See Jourdan
v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the
district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.”). “Further, the United States Supreme
Court has recognized that courts have an inherent power to manage their own affairs and may
dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution.” Lyons-Bey v. Pennell, 93 F. App’x 732, 733
(6th Cir. 2004) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
Because it appears to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned any interest in prosecuting
this case, the Court will dismiss the action by separate Order.
Date:
September 3, 2014
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
4414.005
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?