Pippinger v. Buncombe County Government Employees et al
Filing
8
ORDER that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/3/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (cly)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00348-MR
JONATHAN DANIEL PIPPINGER,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
)
EMPLOYEES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
The pro se Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). [Doc. 1]. On April 17, 2024,
the Court dismissed the Complaint on initial review and granted the Plaintiff
30 days to amend. [Doc. 7]. The Plaintiff was cautioned that “[s]hould the
Plaintiff fail to timely amend his Complaint in accordance with this Order, the
Court will dismiss this action without further notice.” [Id. at 6].
The Plaintiff has not amended his Complaint, and the time to do so has
expired. The Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action, and the Court
is unable to proceed. This case will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“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.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-33 (1962)
(although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for sua sponte dismissal,
Rule 41(b) does not imply any such restriction and a court has the inherent
power to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or violation of a court order).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 3, 2024
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?