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)

Download PDF
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?