ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on periodic status review following the return of mail sent to Plaintiff's listed address as undeliverable.

On November 26, 2019, the Clerk mailed Plaintiff a copy of this Court's Order granting an enlargement of time for Defendant McCoy to answer or to otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. [Doc. 20]. Plaintiff's current address is listed on the docket report as Mecklenburg County Jail, 80 East 4th Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202. On December 11, 2019, the Court received a notice that the Court's Order [Doc. 20] was being returned undeliverable.

Plaintiffs have a general duty to prosecute their cases. In this regard, a pro se plaintiff must keep the Court apprised of his current address. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) ("A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address."). Where a pro se plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his change of address, the action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Accord Walker v. Moak, Civil Action No. 07-7738, 2008 WL 4722386 (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2008) (dismissing without prejudice a § 1983 action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the plaintiff did not notify the court of his new address upon his release from jail). Before dismissing this action for failure to prosecute, the Court will give Plaintiff ten days in which to notify the Court of his updated address.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: