Grant et al v. Hatchett et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM: This action will be DISMISSED for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of this Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (Doc. 2), and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be DENIED (Doc. 1). An appropriate Judgment will enter. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 1/31/2014. (BJL, )***Mailed to Michael Grant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
MICHAEL J. GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
STEVEN D. HATCHETT; DISTRICT
ATTORNEY STEVE BEBB;
WAYNE CARTER; DETECTIVE
JIMMY SMITH; DETECTIVE
MICHAEL HUMBLE; J.M. (JIM)
CREECH; CARL MATTHEWS;
CARL MATTHEWS;
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-CV-333
Mattice/Carter

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Michael J. Grant (“Plaintiff”) is confined at the McMinn County Justice
Center in Athens, Tennessee. Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 2). Plaintiff neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor submitted all of the
necessary documents to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1).
Because Plaintiff failed to submit a Prisoner Account Statement Certificate and
certified copy of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period, the Court
issued a deficiency order (Doc. 3). On December 23, 2013, the Court issued an order
directing Plaintiff to file, within twenty (20) days from the date of the Order, the
necessary trust account documents (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to
return the completed documents within the time required would result in the dismissal of
his case for lack of prosecution.
As of January 31, 2014, Plaintiff has failed to submit the required documents or
file any response to the Court’s December 23, 2013, Order. Plaintiff’s failure to timely

respond to the Court’s Order results in a finding by the Court that Plaintiff has failed to
comply with its Order. Consequently, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for
noncompliance with its Order and failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff has given no indication that he intends to proceed with this action. Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court
order. This authority is based on the Court’s inherent authority to control its docket and
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.
Therefore, this action will be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to
comply with the orders of this Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (Doc. 2), and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be
DENIED (Doc. 1).
An appropriate Judgment will enter.
/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2