Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus

M.D. Georgia

Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus

DecidedOctober 15, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00087

StatusUnknown

This text of Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus (Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus) 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

Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION COREY DEON LYLES, : Plaintiff, : : CASE: 7:25-CV-00087-WLS-ALS v. : MARCUS, : : PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C, §1983 Defendant. : BEFORE THE U. 8. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Prose Plaintiff Corey Deon. Lyles, a prisoner ‘at Telfair State Prison in Helena, □ Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1, On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff □

was ordered to recast his complaint and provided instructions on how to do so. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s order and was informed that failure to comply could result in dismissal of this action. /d. Plaintiff failed to.respond. Therefore, on September 5, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that he failed to respond to an order of the Court. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was ordered to show.cause why this □ action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order, /d. The Court. informed Plaintiff that this action could be dismissed ifhe failed to respond to the order □□ □□□ show cause or otherwise file his amended complaint as instructed. Id: Plaintiff was given □□ fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff again failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this 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 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failtire 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)); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing without prejudice prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with court order to file amended complaint where order expressly informed prisoner of deficiencies in his complaint and rules that he needed to follow in filing amended complaint). 3 oo . oe

__-W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. 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 COREY DEON LYLES, : Plaintiff, : : CASE: 7:25-CV-00087-WLS-ALS v. : MARCUS, : : PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C, §1983 Defendant. : BEFORE THE U. 8. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Prose Plaintiff Corey Deon. Lyles, a prisoner ‘at Telfair State Prison in Helena, □ Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1, On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff □

was ordered to recast his complaint and provided instructions on how to do so. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s order and was informed that failure to comply could result in dismissal of this action. /d. Plaintiff failed to.respond. Therefore, on September 5, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that he failed to respond to an order of the Court. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was ordered to show.cause why this □ action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order, /d. The Court. informed Plaintiff that this action could be dismissed ifhe failed to respond to the order □□ □□□ show cause or otherwise file his amended complaint as instructed. Id: Plaintiff was given □□ fourteen (14) days to comply with the Court’s order. Plaintiff again failed to respond. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise prosecute this 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 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failtire 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)); Duong Thanh Ho v. Costello, 757 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing without prejudice prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint for failure to comply with court order to file amended complaint where order expressly informed prisoner of deficiencies in his complaint and rules that he needed to follow in filing amended complaint). 3 oo . oe

__-W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Corey Deon Lyles v. Marcus, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-deon-lyles-v-marcus-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack