ORDER

JAMES M. MOODY, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff Christopher D. Johnson filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on May 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 2). In its initial order to Johnson, the Court notified him of his duty to promptly notify the Clerk and the parties of any change in his address; the Court also notified Johnson that if any communication from the Court to him is not responded to within 30 days, his case may be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. No. 3.

On August 26, 2019, mail sent to Johnson was returned as undeliverable, and the envelope was entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 13. The Court entered a text order that day notifying Johnson that mail could not be delivered to him because he was no longer at the address he provided. Doc. No. 14. Johnson was directed to provide notice of his current mailing address by no later than thirty days from the entry of the August 26 text order. He was warned that his failure to provide a current mailing address may cause his complaint to be dismissed. A printed version of the text order was sent to him at his last known address. The envelope containing the text order could not be delivered to Johnson because he was no longer at the address he provided, and the envelope was returned to the Clerk of the Court and entered on the docket. See Doc. No. 18.

More than 30 days have passed, and Johnson has not complied or otherwise responded to the August 26 order. Accordingly, the Court finds that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court's orders. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

It is therefore ordered that Johnson's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15) is denied as moot.