Kelly v. Williams

D. South Carolina

Kelly v. Williams

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-03009

StatusUnknown

This text of Kelly v. Williams (Kelly v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kelly v. Williams, (D.S.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Albert S. Kelly, #277334, ) Case No.: 4:25-cv-3009-JD-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) ORDER Regional Director Williams, Superior ) Respondent, ) ) Defendants. )

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On April 17, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete a complaint form and either pay the filing fee or move for in forma pauperis status. (DE 5.) This matter now comes before the Court due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. (DE 5.) Notably, Plaintiff exhibited similar noncompliance in Kelly v. Sharill, No. 4:25-cv-1430-JD, which was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41. The Order was mailed to the address provided by Plaintiff. Because the mailing was not returned as undeliverable, the Court presumes Plaintiff received the Order. Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to comply within the time permitted. To date, the Court has received no response or communication from Plaintiff, and the deadline for compliance has expired. “The court has inherent 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). Additionally, Rule 41(b) expressly authorizes dismissal of actions for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The 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, 6380-31 (1962). Given Plaintiffs failure to comply within the time ordered, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute this action, warranting dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal with prejudice when prior warning provided); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (recognizing court’s authority to dismiss sua sponte). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. ITIS SO ORDERED. Chap coer a Beers enero United States Distt Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Albert S. Kelly, #277334, ) Case No.: 4:25-cv-3009-JD-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ) ORDER Regional Director Williams, Superior ) Respondent, ) ) Defendants. )

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On April 17, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete a complaint form and either pay the filing fee or move for in forma pauperis status. (DE 5.) This matter now comes before the Court due to Plaintiffs failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order. (DE 5.) Notably, Plaintiff exhibited similar noncompliance in Kelly v. Sharill, No. 4:25-cv-1430-JD, which was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41. The Order was mailed to the address provided by Plaintiff. Because the mailing was not returned as undeliverable, the Court presumes Plaintiff received the Order. Despite this, Plaintiff has failed to comply within the time permitted. To date, the Court has received no response or communication from Plaintiff, and the deadline for compliance has expired. “The court has inherent 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). Additionally, Rule 41(b) expressly authorizes dismissal of actions for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The 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, 6380-31 (1962). Given Plaintiffs failure to comply within the time ordered, the Court concludes that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute this action, warranting dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (authorizing dismissal when a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order); see also Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal with prejudice when prior warning provided); Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (recognizing court’s authority to dismiss sua sponte). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. ITIS SO ORDERED. Chap coer a Beers enero United States Distt Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kelly v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-v-williams-scd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack