TRACEY DYE v. NP CRYSTAL LARGE, et al.
This text of TRACEY DYE v. NP CRYSTAL LARGE, et al. (TRACEY DYE v. NP CRYSTAL LARGE, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | cirksorrice us □□□□□□□□ cou FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA aero ROANOKE DIVISION March 11, 2026 LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK By: /s/ M. Poff TRACEY DYE, ) DEPUTY CLERK ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV00142 ) ) OPINION ) NP CRYSTAL LARGE, et al., ) | JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) Defendants. ) Tracey Dye, Pro Se Plaintiff; Taylor D. Brewer and Sophia M. Miller, MORGAN, REEVES & CONN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants. The plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, raising claims related to improper medical treatment. Following receipt of a Notice of Change of Address, Dkt. No. 37, the court entered an Order
on February 24, 2026, directing Dye to pay the administrative fees associated with filing this lawsuit or otherwise respond given that Dye had been released from incarceration. Order, Dkt. No. 38. The Order was mailed to Dye’s most recently provided address and was returned as undeliverable with a notation indicating that
no forwarding address was provided. Mail Ret., Dkt. No. 39. The court’s February 24, 2026, Order warned Dye that failure to maintain an address of record would result in the immediate dismissal of this action without prejudice. Order, Dkt. No. 38. Dye has also been advised on prior occasions of the
importance of maintaining an updated address and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case. See e.g., Order 4, Dkt No. 3; Order 2, Dkt. No. 7. Without
a current mailing address, the court cannot communicate with Dye regarding next steps in the litigation. Accordingly, the court concludes that Dye may have lost interest in prosecuting this action and will, therefore, dismiss it without prejudice.
See Burrell v. Shirley, 142 F.4th 239, 249 (4th Cir. 2025) (providing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides an explicit basis for courts to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders). For these reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, and
pending motions will be denied without prejudice as moot.1 ENTER: March 11, 2026 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge
1 The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on May 27, 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
TRACEY DYE v. NP CRYSTAL LARGE, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracey-dye-v-np-crystal-large-et-al-vawd-2026.