LAVELLE v. WILLIAMSON

Opinion

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

CAWEISI LAVELLE, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-170 (MTT) ) MICHAEL WILLIAMSON, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ )

ORDER Plaintiff Caweisi Lavelle’s whereabouts are unknown. Lavelle’s counsel, Ella A. Hughes and Passion V. Briscoe, moved to withdraw as counsel because they could not locate Lavelle. Doc. 32. The Court denied that motion and ordered Lavelle to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Doc. 33. Lavelle did not respond to the Court’s order. Rather, Hughes and Briscoe responded, reiterating that Lavelle’s whereabouts are unknown. Doc. 34. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order,” his claims may be dismissed.1 Moreover, “the authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an inherent

1 Though Rule 41(b) by its terms applies only to dismissal on a defendant's motion, the Eleventh Circuit has “elide[d] th[e] neat distinction” between a district court's dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) and dismissal pursuant to its inherent authority in many of its decisions. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005); see also World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int’l Family Entm’t, Inc., 41 F.3d 1454, 1456 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Rule 41(b) as source of the district court’s authority to dismiss actions). Regardless of the source of authority, it is clear the Court may dismiss an action as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order. power, governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs.” Betty K Agencies, Ltd., 432 F.3d at 1337 (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)). Because Lavelle has failed to prosecute his case and comply with the Court’s order, dismissal is

appropriate. Accordingly, Lavelle’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of October, 2022. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT