Johnson v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM: This action will be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution.1 Fed. R.Civ. P.41(b). Finally, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3). A SEPARATE ORDER WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 8/5/2015. (aws, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA

CHRISTOPHER ANTON JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, TENNESSEE
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (TBI),
DIRECTOR MARK GWEN, BOARD OF
PROBATION AND PAROLES (TBOPP),
PROBATION OFFICER SUPERVISOR
ADKINS, PROBATION OFFICER
SHAUN COKER, PROBATION OFFICER
ANDREW KILPATRICK, HAMILTON
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, and HAMILTON
COUNTY SHERIFF JIM HAMMOND,

In their individual and official capacities,
Defendants.

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

No.: 1:15-cv-131-HSM-SKL

MEMORANDUM

On June 10, 2015, this Court entered an order in this pro se prisoner’s civil rights case,
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and mailed it to him at the address which he provided in his
complaint [Doc. 1 p. 3]. Seven days later, on June 17, 2015, that order was returned to the Court
by the U.S. Postal Service marked, “Return to Sender, Not in Custody” [Doc. 4]. More than one
month has passed since the postal return of that order, and Plaintiff has not updated his address
or otherwise communicated with the Court with respect to this case. Obviously, without a

correct and current address, the Court cannot communicate with Plaintiff. The same is true of
Defendants’ communication with Plaintiff.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice for want of
prosecution.1 Fed. R.Civ. P.41(b). Finally, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
order would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
A SEPARATE ORDER WILL ENTER.

ENTER:

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

If this case were not being dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court would enter a
deficiency order, advising Plaintiff that he had failed to submit a required document to support
his in forma pauperis application and warning him that his case would be dismissed if he failed
to respond appropriately to the deficiency order.
2