Clifton v. Schofield et al

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Therefore, Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 89] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing a courts authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991). In view of the reason for this dismissal, the Court CERTIFIES that an y appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, should Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he also must pay the full appellate filing fee of five-hundred, five dollars ($505.00) or submit a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and any required supporting documentation. Finally, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. (C/M pro se plaintiff) Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 5-16-2017. (JCK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ATGREENEVILLE
TERRY LEE CLIFTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DERRICK SCHOFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:15-CV-138-JRG-MCLC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order in this prisoner’s pro se civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and mailed it to Plaintiff [Doc. 90]. That order directed Plaintiff to show
cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to provide the Court with an
updated address and his failure to prosecute his case [Id.]. The order also forewarned Plaintiff
that, unless within ten (10) days of the date on the order, Plaintiff notified the Court of his
current address and of his desire to litigate his claims, the Court would grant Defendants’ motion
to dismiss and, without further notice to Plaintiff, would dismiss his case [Id.].
On May 12, 2017, the correspondence containing that order was returned to the Court,
with the face of the envelope marked, “Not at This Facility, Paroled” [Doc. 91]. It thus remains
that Plaintiff has failed to apprise the Court of his updated address and of whether he desires to
advance his claims.
Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. 89] is GRANTED and this action is
DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and to comply with the orders of this Court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing a court’s

authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108
(6th Cir. 1991).
In view of the reason for this dismissal, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this
dismissal would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, should
Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he also must pay the full appellate filing fee of five-hundred, five
dollars ($505.00) or submit a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and any required
supporting documentation.
Finally, the Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.
SO ORDERED.

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2