RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedures for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.

If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Discussion

Andrew Richard Cummins filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer. (Docket entry #2) In his original complaint, he claimed that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, but the complaint did not provide enough facts to support his claims. In response to the Court's order, Mr. Cummins filed an amended complaint (#5), and the Court ordered service for Defendants Jones, Gardner, Butler, Griffin, Kelley, Lay, Payne, and Wilson. (#6)

Mr. Cummins then filed a second amended complaint, and the Court also ordered service for Defendant Stieve. (#39) Later, the Court ordered service for Defendants Nelson, Ragland, Murphy Abhulimen, and Turner after Mr. Cummins identified them as the Doe Defendants. (#42)

Now pending are the Defendants' motions to dismiss based on Mr. Cummins's failure to attend his scheduled deposition. (#66, #70)

On January 6, 2017, Mr. Cummins requested additional time to respond to the Defendants' motions. (#72) The Court provided Mr. Cummins until February 17, 2017 to respond. (#74) In addition, because Mr. Cummins's mail had been returned to the Court as "undeliverable," the Court also ordered Mr. Cummins to provide a valid updated address by the same date. (#73) The Court specifically warned Mr. Cummins that his claims could be dismissed if he failed to comply with its Order. Local Rule 5.5.

To date, Mr. Cummins has not responded to the Court's January 18, 2017 Order and the time for doing so has passed.

III. Conclusion

Mr. Cummins's claims should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on his failure to comply with the Court's January 18, 2017 Order and his failure to prosecute this lawsuit. The Defendants' motions to dismiss (#66, #70) should be DENIED, as moot.