Jennings v. MTC
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the reasons stated in the Order of Dismissal, this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to obey the Court's orders and to prosecute. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on December 5, 2013. (lda)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
KELSEY JENNINGS, # 111297
CAUSE NO. 5:13cv139-DCB-MTP
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Pro se Plaintiff Kelsey Jennings initiated this
action on September 6, 2013. He is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of
That same day the Court sent Plaintiff notice of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an
Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certification, and a form for voluntary dismissal. The Court
ordered him to sign and file either the Acknowledgment or the voluntary dismissal. By separate
Order  the Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the filing and administrative fees or amend his
application to proceed in forma pauperis, “specifically, the section entitled ‘Certificate to Be
Completed by Authorized Officer’ of prison accounts or file an affidavit specifically stating the
name of the prison official contacted concerning the Certificate and why this information is not
provided to this court.” (Dkt. 4 at 1). The responses were due by October 7, 2013. Having
received no response, on November 4, the Court entered the Order to Show Cause , ordering
Plaintiff to show cause by November 18, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute or to obey Orders of the Court.
All three Orders [3, 4, 5] were sent to Plaintiff’s address of record, and they were not
returned as undeliverable. To date he has not responded nor otherwise contacted the Court. The
Court has warned Plaintiff that failure to comply “will be deemed as a purposeful delay and
contumacious act by the plaintiff and may result in this case being dismissed.” (Dkt. 3 at 2). See
also (Dkt. 4 at 1-2); (Dkt. 5 at 1-2). It is apparent from his failure to respond or otherwise
communicate with the Court that Plaintiff lacks interest in pursuing this claim.
The Court has the authority to dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or
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 obey
the Court’s orders and to prosecute. A separate final judgment will be entered pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 5th day of December, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?