Kraihon Aloysius Morgan v. Houston County Detention Center

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00275
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

KRAIHON ALOYSIUS MORGAN, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : NO. 5:25-cv-00275-MTT-CHW : HOUSTON COUNTY : DETENTION CENTER, : : Defendant. : ________________________________ :

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pro se Plaintiff Kraihon Alysius Morgan filed a complaint seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was in the Houston County Detention Center in Perry, Georgia. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Thereafter, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Houston County Detention Center was returned to this Court as undeliverable. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of change of address, which appeared to indicate that Plaintiff had been released from custody. See ECF No. 6. Mail sent to Plaintiff at the address identified in the notice of change of address was subsequently returned to this Court as undeliverable with a notation that there was no mail receptacle at this address. ECF No. 9. Thus, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to notify this Court in writing as to whether mail could be received at this address or to provide an updated address where mail could be delivered. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that if he failed to respond or if mail continued to be returned as undeliverable, the Court would have no way to communicate with Plaintiff and this case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. Plaintiff was also ordered to

submit a non-prisoner motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. More than fourteen days have passed since that order was entered. In the meantime, the order has been returned to this Court as undeliverable with a notation that the address was insufficient. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not provided any other address or otherwise been in contact with the Court. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed as to his current

address and has otherwise failed to prosecute this case, it is hereby ORDERED that this action be 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) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”). SO ORDERED, this 5th day of November, 2025. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT