Hurst v. Thomas et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 03/30/2015. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James L. Hurst,
Petitioner,
vs.
Warden, FCI-Edgefield,
Respondent.

) C/A No. 4:14-4725-TMC-TER
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)

________________________________________
This case is before the Court because of Petitioner’s failure to comply with the magistrate
judge’s Order of January 29, 2015. (ECF No. 3).
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge ordered Petitioner to submit items
needed to render this case into proper form within twenty-one days, and specifically informed
Petitioner that if he failed to do so, this case would be subject to dismissal. The Court has not
received any response from Petitioner and the time for his compliance has passed.
The mail in which the Order was sent to Petitioner at the address provided when the case was
filed has not been returned to the court, thus it is presumed that Petitioner received the Order, but
has neglected to comply with it within the time permitted under the Order.
Petitioner’s lack of response to the Order indicates an intent to not continue prosecuting this
case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(district courts may dismiss an
action if a Petitioner fails to comply with "any order of the court."); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882
F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)(dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler
Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982)(court may dismiss sua sponte).

1

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
March 30, 2015
Anderson, SC

2