ROSA v. WALTON COUNTY

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: September 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00068
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

KEVIN ROSA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 3:25-cv-68-CDL-AGH : WALTON COUNTY, : : Defendant. : ________________________________ :

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Kevin Rosa, a prisoner currently confined in the Walton County Jail in Monroe, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On June 20, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to (1) file a proper and complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis, to include a certified copy of his prison trust fund account information, and (2) to amend or supplement his Complaint to provide the Court with additional factual allegations in support of his claims. Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 4. The time for compliance passed without a response. As such, Plaintiff was ordered to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the June 20th Order. Plaintiff was also again ordered to comply with the June 20th Order if he wished to continue with his claims. Plaintiff was given another fourteen days to respond, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply could result in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 5.

The time for compliance has again expired without a response from Plaintiff. A district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and this authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the court’s orders. Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2009) (first citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); and then citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)) (finding court did not err in

dismissing the third amended complaint for failure to follow the court’s instructions regarding how to amend the complaint). Dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the litigant has been forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,

837 (11th Cir. 1989)) (upholding dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failure to follow court’s instructions). This action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s June 20, 2025 Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2025. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA