Burns v. Joseph

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Joseph Burns, #31338-047, ) C/A No. 4:25-1373-RMG Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) M.V. Joseph, Warden, ) Respondent. ) ________________________________________________)

This is a ' 2241 action filed by a federal prisoner. This case is before the undersigned due to Petitioner=s failure to comply with the magistrate judge=s order dated March 14, 2025, for Petitioner to pay the fee or file an in forma pauperis motion. (ECF No. 5). The mail in which the Order was sent to Petitioner=s provided address has not been returned to the court, thus it is presumed that Petitioner received the Order, but has neglected to comply with the Order within the time permitted under the Order. The Court has not received a response from Petitioner and the time for compliance has passed. AThe court has Ainherent power to manage its docket in the interests of justice.@ Luberda v. Purdue Frederick Corp., No. 4:13-cv-00897, 2013 WL 12157548, at *1 (D.S.C. May 31, 2013). It also has the authority expressly recognized in Rule 41(b) to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). AThe authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an >inherent power,= governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.@ Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 63031 (1962). Petitioner=s lack of response indicates an intent to not prosecute this case, and subjects this case to dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)(district courts may dismiss an action for failure to comply with an order of the court); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989)(dismissal with prejudice appropriate where warning given); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982)(court may dismiss sua sponte); see also Brown v. Clarke, 2022 WL 42489, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022)(affirming habeas R. 41 dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee or apply for in forma pauperis status).

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge Charleston, South Carolina April 30, 2025

2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.