Williams v. Owen et al

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/27/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Anthony Scott Williams,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden John Owen, Retired; Captain Eric
Rayburn: Acting Warden Johnson;
Lieutenant Patterson, SIS Department,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) C/A No. 0:12-2385-TMC
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION & ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff, Anthony Scott Williams (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner in Federal
Correctional Institution Williamsburg (“FCI Williamsburg”) in Salters, South Carolina, filed
his Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), on August 22, 2012. Plaintiff, proceeding pro
se, alleges numerous violations of his constitutional rights by former and current staff
members of FCI Williamsburg. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) D.S.C., this case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett, for initial review.
By Order dated October 19, 2012 (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff’s “Motion to Waive
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” (ECF No. 2) was denied without prejudice, and
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Mandatory Preliminary Injunction for Retaliation/Harassment” (ECF
No. 3) was construed as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which “the court may issue a preliminary injunction
only on notice to the adverse party.” The Court advised Plaintiff that, if he brought this case
into proper form by following the instructions set forth in the Order of October 19, 2012

(ECF No. 9), the Court would determine whether to authorize service upon Defendants of
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
3). To bring this case into proper form, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the $350 filing
fee or to complete, sign and return an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees
and Affidavit (Form AO 240) and a Financial Certificate, and to submit properly completed,
proposed service documents, i.e. summonses and Forms USM-285, for Defendants. The
Order of October 29, 2012 also ordered Plaintiff “to always keep the Clerk of Court advised
in writing (901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201) if [Plaintiff’s] address
changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines
for [Plaintiff] to meet will be received by [Plaintiff].” ECF No. 9, p. 4. The Order specifically
warned Plaintiff that, “[i]f as a result of [Plaintiff’s] failure to comply with this Order, [Plaintiff]
fail[ed] to meet a deadline set by this Court, [Plaintiff’s] case may be dismissed for
violating this Order.” Id.
The Order was mailed to Plaintiff at the address Plaintiff provided to the Court, which
is the correct address for FCI Williamsburg, i.e. Post Office Box 340, Salters, South
Carolina 29590. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order, and the time for responding lapsed
on November 13, 2012. The mail in which the Order was sent to Plaintiff has not been
returned to the Court. Thus, the Court presumes that Plaintiff received the Order, but has
neglected to comply with it within the time permitted under the Order. Plaintiff’s lack of
response to the Order indicates an intent to discontinue prosecuting this case and subjects
this case to dismissal.

2

As Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and failed to comply with the Court’s
Order, it is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant
to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Link v. Wabash Railroad
Company, 370 U.S. 626 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

Anderson, South Carolina
November 27, 2012

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3