Strickland v. Nurse et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/20/2012. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
James Stephen Strickland,
a.k.a. James S. Strickland,

) C/A No. 4:11-2014-JFA-TER
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
Nurse;
Dr. Alewine, Head Doctor Broad River;
Dr. Babb, Lieber CI;
Padula, Lee Warden CI,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

Plaintiff, a state prisoner in the Kirkland Correctional Institution of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections in Columbia, South Carolina, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on August 2, 2011, alleging cruel and unusual punishment, retaliation,
denial of his access to court, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See ECF No.
1. On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 12). By Order issued
on December 19, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III instructed Plaintiff
to submit a properly completed Financial Certificate to accompany his Application to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit (ECF No. 2), as is required by this Court’s standing order,
In Re: Procedures in Civil Actions Filed by Prisoner Pro Se Litigants, 3:07-mc-5014-JFA (D.S.C.
Sept. 18, 2007), and to provide the proposed service documents for Defendants, all of which is
necessary to bring this case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. See ECF
No. 15. Magistrate Judge Rogers warned Plaintiff that failure to provide the necessary information

1

within the timetable set forth in the Order may subject the case to dismissal. Id at p. 1. The Order
was mailed to Plaintiff at the address Plaintiff provided to the Court, which is the correct address for
the Kirkland Correctional Institution, i.e. 4344 Broad River Road, Columbia, SC 29210.
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order, and the time for responding lapsed on January 12,
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. As Plaintiff has failed to
prosecute this case and failed to comply with a court order, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 12) are moot, and 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.

January 20, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2