BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL

M.D. Georgia

BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL

DecidedApril 7, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00097

StatusUnknown

This text of BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL (BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

TAVIS BARROW, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 3:24-cv-00097-CDL-CHW v. : : WALTON COUNTY JAIL, et al., : : Defendants. : : _________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Tavis Barrow, an inmate in the Walton County Jail in Monroe, Georgia filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On January 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $7.84. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was further ordered to recast his complaint and provided with specific instructions on how to do so. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply with the Court’s order. Id. He was informed that failure to respond may result in dismissal of this civil action. Id. Plaintiff failed to pay the fee or recast his complaint as ordered. Therefore, on March 3, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s order. ECF No. 7. The Court specifically informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise pay the fee and file his recast complaint. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond, and he again failed to do so. Id.

Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of April, 2025.

S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

TAVIS BARROW, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 3:24-cv-00097-CDL-CHW v. : : WALTON COUNTY JAIL, et al., : : Defendants. : : _________________________________

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Tavis Barrow, an inmate in the Walton County Jail in Monroe, Georgia filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On January 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $7.84. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was further ordered to recast his complaint and provided with specific instructions on how to do so. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply with the Court’s order. Id. He was informed that failure to respond may result in dismissal of this civil action. Id. Plaintiff failed to pay the fee or recast his complaint as ordered. Therefore, on March 3, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s order. ECF No. 7. The Court specifically informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise pay the fee and file his recast complaint. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond, and he again failed to do so. Id.

Because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of April, 2025.

S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BARROW v. WALTON COUNTY JAIL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrow-v-walton-county-jail-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack