Filed: Aug. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge. Ronald Hines ("Hines"), an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him during a prior term of incarceration at the Covington County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Hines to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. March 12, 2013 Order — Doc. No. 8 at 6. The court recently obtained information indicating t
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge. Ronald Hines ("Hines"), an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him during a prior term of incarceration at the Covington County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Hines to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. March 12, 2013 Order — Doc. No. 8 at 6. The court recently obtained information indicating th..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WALLACE CAPEL, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Ronald Hines ("Hines"), an indigent inmate, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the adequacy of medical treatment provided to him during a prior term of incarceration at the Covington County Jail. The order of procedure entered in this case specifically directed Hines to immediately inform the court of any change in his address. March 12, 2013 Order — Doc. No. 8 at 6.
The court recently obtained information indicating that Hines was not currently at the address he last provided for service. In light of the foregoing, the court entered an order requiring that on or before August 15, 2014 Hines inform the court of his present address. August 5, 2014 Order — Doc. No. 57. The order specifically advised Hines that this case could not proceed if his whereabouts remained unknown and cautioned him that his failure to comply with its directives would result in the dismissal of this case. Id. The postal service returned this document as undeliverable.
As is clear from the foregoing, Hines has failed to comply with the directives of the orders entered by this court. In addition, this case cannot properly proceed in his absence. It likewise appears that Hines is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case. The court, therefore, concludes that this case is due to be dismissed. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (As a general rule, where a litigant has been forewarned, dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion.); see also Tanner v. Neal, 232 F. App'x 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of inmate's § 1983 action for failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with court's prior order directing amendment and warning of consequences for failure to comply). Consequently, the court concludes that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders of this court and his failure to properly prosecute this action warrant dismissal of this case.
A separate judgment shall issue.
