Moody v. Bedford Co. Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION. This action will be DISMISSED for failure to comply with orders of the Court and for want of prosecution. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 12/27/2016. (AML, ) Mailed to Plaintiff at L/K/A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT WINCHESTER
JOSEPH MOODY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEDFORD COUNTY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

4:14-CV-072-SKL

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a pro se prisoner’s complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 21,
2016, the Court entered a scheduling order and an order governing depositions [Docs. 18 and
19]. When the Clerk mailed those orders to Plaintiff, the mail was returned as undeliverable with
the envelope marked “Moved, left no address” and a handwritten note indicating that Plaintiff
has been paroled [Doc. 20 at Page ID # 75]. It is therefore clear that Plaintiff has failed to
provide the Court with notice of his correct address and, without his correct and current address,
neither the Court nor Defendant can communicate with him regarding his case. The Court
previously ordered Plaintiff to inform the Court and Defendant or counsel of record of any
address changes immediately and warned Plaintiff that failure to provide a correct address within
ten days may result in the dismissal of this action [Doc. 7 at Page ID # 43].
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for failure to comply with orders of the
Court and 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, No. 01-229234, 34 F. App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL
926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 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).
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith
and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WILL ENTER.
ENTER:
s/ fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE