BEY v. SMITH

M.D. Georgia

BEY v. SMITH

DecidedOctober 1, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00071

StatusUnknown

This text of BEY v. SMITH (BEY v. SMITH) 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

BEY v. SMITH, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

UMAR BEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-71 (LAG) : CATHERINE SMITH, and JESS HORNSBY, : : Defendants. : : ORDER Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the above-captioned matter on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 1). On August 28, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to (1) “[p]ay the required filing fee or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee;” (2) “[s]how good cause in writing why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to serve process;” and (3) “[f]ile an amended complaint containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).” (Doc. 2 at 2). Plaintiff was advised that a failure to respond to the Order could result in dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” (first citing Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978))).

SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF 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 VALDOSTA DIVISION

UMAR BEY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-71 (LAG) : CATHERINE SMITH, and JESS HORNSBY, : : Defendants. : : ORDER Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the above-captioned matter on May 20, 2025. (Doc. 1). On August 28, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to (1) “[p]ay the required filing fee or file a motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee;” (2) “[s]how good cause in writing why the case shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to serve process;” and (3) “[f]ile an amended complaint containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).” (Doc. 2 at 2). Plaintiff was advised that a failure to respond to the Order could result in dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. (Id.). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.” (first citing Fed.R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978))).

SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BEY v. SMITH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bey-v-smith-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack