Glasper v. Huffman et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Taylor B. McNeel on 9/16/22. (JCH)

Case 1:22-cv-00171-TBM-RPM Document 5 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RONNIE GLASPER
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-cv-171-TBM-RPM

UNKNOWN HUFFMAN, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on pro se Plaintiff Ronnie Glasper’s failure to
comply with Court Orders. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on July 11, 2022, alleging unconstitutional
conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [1]. Plaintiff was then ordered [3] to sign and
file an Acknowledgement of Receipt and Certification under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
within 30 days. This Order [3] warned Plaintiff that his “failure to advise this court of a change of
address . . . may result in this case being dismissed sua sponte, without prejudice, and without
further written notice.” [3], p. 2. This Order [3] was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address,
and it was not returned to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff did not timely comply with the
Court’s Order [3].
On August 25, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for his failure to comply. [4]. The Court extended Plaintiff’s responsive deadline to
September 8, 2022, and warned him again “[t]hat failure to advise the Court of a change of address
or failure to timely comply with any order of the Court . . . will result in this lawsuit being dismissed
without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff.” [4], pp. 1-2. The Order [4] to Show
Cause was mailed to Plaintiff at his last-known address, and it was not returned to the Court as
undeliverable. Plaintiff did not timely comply with the Court’s Order [4] to Show Cause, and he

Case 1:22-cv-00171-TBM-RPM Document 5 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 3

has not communicated with the Court since he filed this lawsuit—despite being warned twice that
a failure to comply or notify the Court about a change in address may lead to the dismissal of his
case. See [3], p. 2; [4], p. 2.
The Court may dismiss an action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court’s “‘inherent power’ . . . to manage [its] own affairs.” Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); see also McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127
(5th Cir. 1988). “The Court must be able to clear its calendar of cases that remain dormant because
of the inaction or dilatoriness of the party seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.” Fauzi v. Royal Hospitality Services, LLC, No. 1:14-cv-83-HSO-RHW, 2016
WL 3166581, *2 (S.D. Miss. Jun. 6, 2016) (citing Link, 370 U.S. at 630). “Such a ‘sanction is
necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in
the calendars’ of the Court.” Id. (quoting Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31). In this case, lesser sanctions
than dismissal have not prompted “diligent prosecution” but have instead “proved to be futile.”
See Tello v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 410 F.3d 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Berry v.
CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Since Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders [3] [4], the Court finds that
this case should be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
failure to prosecute and for failing to respond to a Court order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This CASE is CLOSED.

2

Case 1:22-cv-00171-TBM-RPM Document 5 Filed 09/16/22 Page 3 of 3

THIS, the 16th day of September, 2022.

_____________________________
TAYLOR B. McNEEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3