Blakney v. Sartin's Discount Drugs

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: action is Dismissed without prejudice. Clerk to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 2/1/2017 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION

J. T. BLAKNEY

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 1:16CV357-LG-RHW

SARTIN’S DISCOUNT DRUGS

DEFENDANT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court sua sponte for consideration of dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) of the Complaint [1] filed by pro
se Plaintiff J.T. Blakney. The Court previously informed Blakney that he failed to
provide a name or address to issue summons and effect service of process, and failed
to allege any specific facts explaining how Defendant Sartin’s Discount Drugs
violated his privacy rights. The Court thus ordered Plaintiff to file a notice of name
and address for service of process on Sartin’s, and an amended complaint containing
specific factual allegations demonstrating the manner in which Sartin’s allegedly
violated his privacy rights. Blakney has never responded to the Order [3] and the
time for doing so expired over a month ago. Therefore, the Court finds that
Blakney’s action should be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) states:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these
rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal
order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision
1

(b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.
“A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to comply with a court order.” Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879 (5th Cir.
1996). In addition, courts have long held the authority to dismiss an action for the
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute “in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of
pending cases and to . . . clear their calendars of cases that have remained dormant
because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).
Here, Magistrate Judge Walker ordered Blakney in writing on December 14,
2016 to provide certain information for service of process and to file an amended
complaint by December 30, 2016. Judge Walker also warned Blakney that “failure
to respond to this Order and/or failure to file the requested pleadings in a timely
manner will result in the dismissal of his lawsuit for failure to prosecute.” (Ord.
Req. Add. Info. at 2, ECF No. 3). Blakney has not responded to the Order or filed
the requested pleading, and has not otherwise contacted the Court or attempted to
prevent this action from being dismissed.
Blakney filed this lawsuit; it is his responsibility to prosecute it, and he has
not done so. Accordingly, the Court finds dismissal of this action proper under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th
Cir. 1998).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is ORDERED to mail a copy of
2

this Order to Plaintiff at the address provided.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 1st day of February, 2017.

s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3