Clark v. Warren Co. Jail et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM: Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice, sua sponte, for want ofprosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)(recognizing courts authority to dismiss a case s ua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. Cityof Grand Rapids, 34 F.Appx 210, 211(6th Cir. 2002) (finding pro se prisoners complaint wassubject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprisedof his current address); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991). AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/14/2016. (DJH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
SENECA TYMAINE CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARREN COUNTY JAIL, EDDIE
KNOWLES, and JACKY MATHENY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 4:13-CV-79-HSM-CHS

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
This prisoner’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court upon
the postal return of an order entered in this lawsuit and mailed to Plaintiff at the address he listed
as his current address in his complaint [Doc. 7]. The order was returned to the Court by the
postal authorities more than fourteen days ago, with the envelope marked, “Not Here, Return to
Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, and Unable to Forward” [Id.]. Obviously, Plaintiff has
failed to provide the Court with an updated notice of his correct address and, without his correct
and current address, neither the Court nor Defendant can communicate with him regarding his
case.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice, sua sponte, for want of
prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(recognizing court’s authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. City
of Grand Rapids, 34 F.App’x 210, 211(6th Cir. 2002) (finding pro se prisoner’s complaint “was
subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed to keep the district court apprised
of his current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991).

AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.

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

2