BOYD v. HANCOCK STATE PRISON

Opinion

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

DAVIOUS MARQUES BOYD, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:23-cv-00219-MTT-CHW v. : : HANCOCK STATE PRISON, et al., : : : Defendants. : : _________________________________

Pro se Plaintiff Davious Boyd, a prisoner at Ware State Prison in Waycross, Georgia, filed this 42 U.S.C § 1983 complaint in the Southern District of Georgia. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay a filing fee nor did he request leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The civil action was transferred to this Court. ECF Nos. 3 and 4. On July 10, 2023, this Court ordered Plaintiff to recast his complaint and provided him with instructions regarding how to do so. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was also ordered to either file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that includes the statutorily required certified account statement or pay the $402.00 filing fee. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply. Id. Plaintiff failed to submit a recast complaint as ordered. On July 18. 2023, the Southern District Court of Georgia forwarded to this Court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis sent to that Court by the Plaintiff. ECF No. 7. However, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis did not include Plaintiff’s certified account statement as ordered by this Court and mandated by law. See id.; ECF No. 6; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)-(2). Therefore, on August 2, 2023, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a

recast complaint nor had Plaintiff complied with this Court’s order to file a certified account statement in support of any motion to proceed in forma pauperis submitted by the Plaintiff. ECF No. 8. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s previous order. Id. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that this action would be dismissed if he failed to comply with this Court’s orders. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond. Id.

Plaintiff has not responded. 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 28th day of August, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT