McCormick v. Krouse

Filing 15

ORDER: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Courts Orders. Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. on 3/12/18. (RLW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MASON MCCORMICK, # 408833
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:17CV265-LG-RHW

DEPUTY KROUSE

DEFENDANT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff Mason
McCormick initiated this action on September 25, 2017. At the time, he was a
pretrial detainee at the Harrison County Detention Center.
On December 18, 2017, the Court ordered McCormick to clarify his physical
address by December 28. Having received no response, on January 11, 2018, the
Court entered the Order to Show Cause [12], ordering him to show cause, by
January 25, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s
prior Order [10]. When McCormick still failed to respond, the Court entered the
Second Order to Show Cause [14], on February 8, giving him one last chance to
comply.
All three Orders were mailed to both McCormick’s address of record at the
jail and the free-world address contained in his Motion to Change Address [8].
Only the copies of the first two Orders that were sent to the jail were returned as
undeliverable. The Second Order to Show Cause was not returned, nor were any
Orders that were sent to the free-world address. To date he has not responded or

otherwise contacted the Court. The Court has warned McCormick that failure to
comply may result in this case being dismissed. (2d Order to Show Cause at 1-2);
(1st Order to Show Cause at 1); (Order Den. Disc. & Change of Address at 2); (Order
Setting Payment Schedule at 2-3); (Dkt. 4 at 2). It is apparent from his failure to
respond or otherwise communicate with the Court that he lacks interest in pursuing
this claim.
The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute or to obey a Court order under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and under the Court’s inherent authority to dismiss the action sua
sponte. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). The Court must be
able to clear its calendars of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or
dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and
expeditious disposition of cases. Such a sanction is necessary in order to prevent
undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the
calendars of the Court. Id. at 629-30. Since Defendant has never been called
upon to respond to the Complaint nor appeared in this action, and since the Court
has not considered the merits of the claims, the case is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons
stated above, this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and obey the Court’s Orders. A separate
final judgment will be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
2

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 12th day of March, 2018.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3