BOYD v. BAILEY

M.D. Georgia

BOYD v. BAILEY

DecidedFebruary 22, 2023

Docket5:22-cv-00447

StatusUnknown

This text of BOYD v. BAILEY (BOYD v. BAILEY) 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

BOYD v. BAILEY, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DAVIOUS MARQUES BOYD, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:22-cv-00447-TES-CHW v. : : INMATE PAUL BAILEY, et al., : : Defendants. : : _________________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Davious Boyd, a prisoner at Riverbend Correctional Facility in Milledgeville, Georgia, filed a document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on a standard § 1983 form and to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a standard form along with a certified account statement or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, on January 31, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that he failed to respond to an order of the Court. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Id. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and he has failed to do so. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s Orders and failure to prosecute this action, the case 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) (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. 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 22nd day of February, 2023.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III., 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

DAVIOUS MARQUES BOYD, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:22-cv-00447-TES-CHW v. : : INMATE PAUL BAILEY, et al., : : Defendants. : : _________________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Davious Boyd, a prisoner at Riverbend Correctional Facility in Milledgeville, Georgia, filed a document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on a standard § 1983 form and to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on a standard form along with a certified account statement or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. Id. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, on January 31, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that he failed to respond to an order of the Court. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Id. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and he has failed to do so. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s Orders and failure to prosecute this action, the case 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) (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. 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 22nd day of February, 2023.

S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III., JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BOYD v. BAILEY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-bailey-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack