The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:22-cv-00028-MR
DASHAWN TYREK BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al., ) ORDER
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
The pro se Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 addressing incidents that allegedly occurred at the Alexander
Correctional Institution. The Plaintiff was notified upon commencing this
action that it is his “responsibility to keep the Court advised of his … current
address at all times” and that the failure to do so may result in this action’s
dismissal for lack of prosecution. [Doc. 3 at 2].
On October 11, 2022, mail addressed to the Plaintiff at the Alexander
CI was returned as undeliverable. [Doc. 15 (envelope stamped “Return to
Sender – Addressee no longer at this address”)]. A review of NCDPS’s
website reflects that the Plaintiff was released from NCDPS on September
22, 2022, and that his present status is “POST RELEASE.”1
On October 28, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to update his
address of record and to inform the Court whether he intends to proceed with
this action, within 10 days. [Doc. 16]. The Plaintiff was cautioned that
“[f]ailure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action without
prejudice and this case’s closure without further notice.” [Id. at 2]. The Order
was mailed to the Plaintiff at his address of record at the Alexander CI. The
envelope was returned with a notation “Return to Sender, Addressee no
longer at this address; Paroled.” [Doc. 17]. The Plaintiff has failed to
respond to the October 28 Order, and the time to do so has expired.
The Plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action and the Court is
unable to proceed. This case will, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or
any claim against it.”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-33 (1962)
(although Rule 41(b) does not expressly provide for sua sponte dismissal,
1 https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=1397
350&searchOffenderId=1397350&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchr
esults&listpage=1 (last accessed Nov. 10, 2022).
Rule 41(b) does not imply any such restriction and a court has the inherent
power to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution or violation of a court order).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 21, 2022
Martiff Reidinger ee
Chief United States District Judge “AES