WHITE v. U.S., CR414-332. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150805763
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This Court granted the government an extension of time to respond to Emory White's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. CR414-332, doc. 26. That Order was served upon movant but has come back as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. Doc. 27. Per Local Rule 11.1, it was White's continuing duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Without it, the Court cannot move this case forward or even communicate with him. And the Court wi
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This Court granted the government an extension of time to respond to Emory White's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. CR414-332, doc. 26. That Order was served upon movant but has come back as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. Doc. 27. Per Local Rule 11.1, it was White's continuing duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Without it, the Court cannot move this case forward or even communicate with him. And the Court wil..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This Court granted the government an extension of time to respond to Emory White's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. CR414-332, doc. 26. That Order was served upon movant but has come back as undeliverable, with no forwarding address. Doc. 27. Per Local Rule 11.1, it was White's continuing duty to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Without it, the Court cannot move this case forward or even communicate with him. And the Court will not waste the government's resources by requiring it to respond to a possibly abandoned § 2255 motion.
A court has the power to prune from its docket those cases that amount to no more than mere deadwood. Accordingly, Emory White's 2255 motion should be DISMISSED without prejudice for his failure to prosecute this action. L.R. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (courts have the inherent authority to dismiss claims for lack of prosecution); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
Source: Leagle
