Charles Lamar Mention v. CoII Xander Spradlin, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00287
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CHARLES LAMAR MENTION, : : Plaintiff, : : No. 4:25-cv-00287-CDL-AGH v. : : COII XANDER SPRADLIN, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Charles Lamar Mention, a prisoner at Muscogee County CI in Columbus, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On October 23, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay an initial partial filing fee of $32.00. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to pay the fee. Id. He was informed that failure to comply with an order of the court may result in dismissal of his complaint. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on December 3, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s order. ECF No. 5. The Court again specifically informed Plaintiff that his action could be dismissed if he failed to respond or otherwise pay the fee. Id. Plaintiff has again failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute his case, his 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 2nd day of January, 2026. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA