UNDERWOOD v. FREEMAN

Opinion

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

TRAVON DEAUNDRE UNDERWOOD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-200 (MTT) ) WILLIAM B FREEMAN et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________ ) ORDER Pro se Plaintiff Travon Deaundre Underwood filed this action and contemporaneously moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1; 2. The Court granted Underwood’s IFP motion and was required to screen his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Doc. 4. After screening, the Court concluded that Underwood’s complaint was deficient and ordered him to recast his complaint no later than August 5, 2025. Id. Despite being warned that failure to fully and timely comply may result in the dismissal of this case, Underwood did not respond. Consequently, Underwood was ordered to show cause no later than August 25, 2025, why the case should not be dismissed and was again warned that failure to fully and timely comply may result in the dismissal of this action.1 Doc. 5. Underwood did not respond. Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 See 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)); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981). S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT