Roberson v. Burnham II

S.D. Georgia

Roberson v. Burnham II

DecidedJune 30, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00049

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Roberson v. Burnham II, (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

HAROLD ROBERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV425-049 ) CHATHAM COUNTY ) SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pro se plaintiff Harold Roberson filed this case objecting to proceedings in a state criminal case. See generally doc. 1. The Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to complete and return the necessary forms. See generally doc. 4. The Court’s Order specifically warned him that failure to return the forms would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 5. The deadline for him to return those forms has passed and he has not returned either form. See generally docket. This Court has the authority to prune cases from its docket where parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo

v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”); Jones

v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Roberson’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order provides a sufficient reason to dismiss his Complaint. Accordingly, Roberson’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and failing to prosecute his case. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2025. Aabgho~d lies CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

HAROLD ROBERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV425-049 ) CHATHAM COUNTY ) SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pro se plaintiff Harold Roberson filed this case objecting to proceedings in a state criminal case. See generally doc. 1. The Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to complete and return the necessary forms. See generally doc. 4. The Court’s Order specifically warned him that failure to return the forms would result in the dismissal of his case. Id. at 5. The deadline for him to return those forms has passed and he has not returned either form. See generally docket. This Court has the authority to prune cases from its docket where parties have failed to comply with its Orders. See S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo

v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989) (“The district court possesses the inherent power to police its docket.”); Jones

v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Floyd v. United States, CV491-277 (S.D. Ga. June 10, 1992). Roberson’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order provides a sufficient reason to dismiss his Complaint. Accordingly, Roberson’s Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and failing to prosecute his case. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED, this 30th day of June, 2025. Aabgho~d lies CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberson v. Burnham II, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-burnham-ii-gasd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack