Yerkey v. Swing et al
MEMORANDUM: This action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, for want of prosecution. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 10/12/2016. (aws, ) Mailed to Howard Yerkey.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AUSTIN SWING, Sheriff; JERRY SIRCY,
Captain; KENNETH MATHEWS, M.D.;
and BEDFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S
This prisoner’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court upon
the postal return of court correspondence mailed to Plaintiff at the address he listed as his current
address in his last communication with the Court [Doc. 9]. The correspondence was returned to
the Court by the postal authorities more than fourteen days ago, with the face of the envelope
marked, “Return to Sender, Refused, and Unable to Forward” [Id.].
Obviously, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with notice of his correct 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. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13.
Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED, 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 a 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?