Doris E. Tucker v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 7:24-cv-00060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA U.S. DISTRICT COURT ROANOKE DIVISION AT ROANOKE, VA FILED DORIS. E. TUCKER, ) November 03, 2025 ) LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK BY: s/ S. Neily, D Clerk Claimant, ) s/S. Neily, Deputy Cler ) Vv. ) Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00060 ) U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ) By: Elizabeth K. Dillon ASSOCIATION, ) Chief United States District Judge ) Respondent. ) OPINION On September 25, 2025, the court issued an order directing claimant Doris E. Tucker to file with the court, within thirty days of the Order’s entry, an address at which service may be accomplished on U.S. Bank Trust National Association. (Dkt. No. 13.) The Order further advised that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. (/d.) The Order was mailed to Tucker at the address on record, however, it was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. No. 14.) More than thirty days have now passed since the entry of the Order, and Tucker has not provided an updated address. Accordingly, it appears that both Tucker’s address and the defendant’s service address are incorrect in this matter. Tucker has not filed anything with the court since January 2024 and has not updated her address. As such, any additional correspondence or further extension of time to update her address or service address of the defendant would likely prove fruitless. Therefore, dismissal is appropriate. See e.g., McCormick v. Horn, No. 7:24-cv-00507, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165357, *1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2024) (dismissing pro se prisoner’s case for failing to provide an updated address, as required by a prior order, which was mailed to the plaintiff but returned as undeliverable); Bardeau v. Pickrel, No. 7:21CV00115, 2021 WL 4520668, at *1 (W.D. Va. Aug.

9, 2021) (same); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that pro se litigants are subject to time requirements and must comply with court orders, and that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for non-compliance). Accordingly, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with the court’s Order by failing to provide a current address for herself

or a valid service address for the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court notes that this dismissal is without prejudice to Tucker’s opportunity to refile her claims in a separate civil action, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. An appropriate final order will issue. Entered: November 3, 2025.

/s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon Elizabeth K. Dillon Chief United States District Judge