Hill v. Walrath et al
Filing
16
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 8/6/2015. (slt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
LYNELL HILL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WALRATH, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 7:15CV00088
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Lynell Hill, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, while incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison. By its Order entered
March 2, 2015, the court advised Hill that a failure to update a mailing address
after a transfer or release from incarceration will result in dismissal of this action.
The court’s mail to Hill has been returned as undeliverable, and Hill has not
contacted the court since March 20, 2015.
Moreover, online records of the
Virginia Department of Corrections indicate that Hill is no longer incarcerated at
any VDOC facility. Therefore, I conclude that Hill has failed to comply with the
court’s Order of March 2, 2015. requiring him to maintain an accurate mailing
address and has, thus, failed to prosecute this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). Accordingly, I will dismiss the action without prejudice
and deny the pending motion as moot.1 See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96
(4th Cir. 1989) (stating pro se litigants are subject to time requirements and respect
for court orders and dismissal is an appropriate sanction for non-compliance);
Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 340-41 (3d Cir. 1982)
(recognizing a district court may sua sponte dismiss without prejudice an action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).
A separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: August 6, 2015.
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
1
In the one motion currently pending in this case, Hill moved to consolidate this
case with a prior case which has already been dismissed.
‐2‐
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?