Nichols v. Stanley et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM: This action will be DISMISSED without prejudice, sua sponte, for want of prosecution. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 4/4/2016. (BJL, )*Mailed to Clayton Owen Nichols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
CLAYTON OWEN NICHOLS, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LARRY BART STANLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 4:14-CV-54-HSM-SKL

MEMORANDUM

This pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was filed in the Middle District of
Tennessee while Plaintiff was confined in the Lincoln County jail and, thereafter, transferred to
this Court [Docs. 1, 4-5]. Upon Plaintiff’s release from jail, he submitted a Notice of Change of
Address [Doc. 8].

The case is now before the Court upon the postal return of legal

correspondence mailed to Plaintiff at the address he provided to the Court in that Notice [Doc.
9]. The mail was returned to the Clerk’s Office by the postal authorities more than fourteen days
ago, with the envelope marked, “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 Change of
Address and, without his correct and current address, neither the Court nor Defendants can
communicate with him regarding his case. In fact, Local Rule 83.13 not only requires pro se
litigants, such as Plaintiff, to file a written notice with the Clerk, but also requires written notice
to be given to all parties, within fourteen days of any change of address.

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 that 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