Opinion
CV423-248
12-07-2023
THOMAS MARION ZACHARY, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF JOHN T. WILCHER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pro se plaintiff Thomas Marion Zachary filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to alleged defects in his state prosecutoin. See generally doc. 10. The Court screened his Complaint, discussed defects in several of the claims asserted, and directed him to file an Amedned Complaint by November 9, 2023. See id. at 8. The Court expressly warned him that failure to comply timely would subject his case to dismissal. Id. at 8-9. He has not complied. See generally docket. His Complaint is, therefore, DISMISSED. Doc. 1.
A district court retains the inherent power to police its docket and to enforce its orders. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dept., 205 Fed.Appx. 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be dismissed either for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with an order of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Additionally, this Court's Local Rules provide that the Court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution when a party has “willful[ly] disobe[yed] . . . any order of the Court” or for “[a]ny other failure to prosecute a civil action with reasonable promptness.” S.D. Ga. L.R. 41.1(b), (c). Zachary's failure to to comply with the Court's Order warrants dismissal. Accordingly, his Complaint is DISMISSED for failing to obey a court order and failing to prosecute his case. Doc. 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.