BECK v. BLACKSHEAR

M.D. Georgia

BECK v. BLACKSHEAR

DecidedJune 17, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00106

StatusUnknown

This text of BECK v. BLACKSHEAR (BECK v. BLACKSHEAR) 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

BECK v. BLACKSHEAR, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DAVID AARON BECK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 5:25-cv-00106-MTT-AGH : JORDAN BLACKSHEAR, : : : Defendant. :

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff David Aaron Beck, a prisoner at Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the preceding six months in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply with an order of the Court could result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on May 16, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. ECF No. 5. The Court specifically informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise submit his certified account statement as previously ordered. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id. Plaintiff has again failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2025.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell______________ MARC T. TREADWELL, 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 MACON DIVISION

DAVID AARON BECK, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 5:25-cv-00106-MTT-AGH : JORDAN BLACKSHEAR, : : : Defendant. :

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff David Aaron Beck, a prisoner at Central State Prison in Macon, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On April 17, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the preceding six months in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply with an order of the Court could result in dismissal of this action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on May 16, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. ECF No. 5. The Court specifically informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise submit his certified account statement as previously ordered. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id. Plaintiff has again failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, this complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2025.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell______________ MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BECK v. BLACKSHEAR, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-blackshear-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack