PITT v. PERRY

M.D. Georgia

PITT v. PERRY

DecidedJune 10, 2021

Docket5:20-cv-00466

StatusUnknown

This text of PITT v. PERRY (PITT v. PERRY) 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

PITT v. PERRY, (M.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

EDWARD PITT, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:20-cv-00466-MTT-CHW v. : : UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendant. : Before the U. S. Magistrate Judge : _________________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Edward Pitt, an inmate at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a handwritten document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee nor submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on a § 1983 form and to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on May 20, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply and diligently prosecute his claims. ECF No. 4. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and he failed to do so. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s Orders and to prosecute this action, the case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown

v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2021.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF 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 MACON DIVISION

EDWARD PITT, : : Plaintiff, : : Case No. 5:20-cv-00466-MTT-CHW v. : : UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, : : Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 Defendant. : Before the U. S. Magistrate Judge : _________________________________

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Edward Pitt, an inmate at Macon State Prison in Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a handwritten document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee nor submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint on a § 1983 form and to either submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply would result in dismissal of his action. Id. Plaintiff failed to respond. Therefore, on May 20, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff that it had not received a response and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply and diligently prosecute his claims. ECF No. 4. The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to respond. Id. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and he failed to do so. Due to Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s Orders and to prosecute this action, the case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown

v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2021.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

PITT v. PERRY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitt-v-perry-gamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack