BISHOP v. COLUMBUS METRA TRANSIT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JAMES HAROLD BISHOP, JR., 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	NO. 4:25-cv-00215-CDL-AGH
V. 	:
:
COLUMBUS METRA TRANSIT, 	:
et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff James Harold Bishop, Jr., a detainee in the Muscogee County Jail
in Columbus, Georgia, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	ECF Nos. 1 & 6. 	He
also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
ECF No. 7. 	Thereafter, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed IFP and ordered to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $35.62. 	ECF No. 8. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to pay
the filing fee and was cautioned that his failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
case. 	Id.
The time for compliance passed, and Plaintiff failed to pay the initial partial filing
fee or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff was ordered to show
cause to the Court why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to pay the
initial partial filing fee. 	ECF No. 9. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was
cautioned that his failure to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this action. 	Id.
More than fourteen days have passed since the order to show cause was entered, and
Case 4:25-cv-00215-CDL-AGH Document 11 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff has not responded to that order. 	Moreover, mail sent to Plaintiff at the Muscogee
County Jail, the only address on file for Plaintiff, has been returned to this Court as
undeliverable. 	ECF No. 10. 	As this Court has no information about Plaintiff’s current
whereabouts, this case cannot continue.
Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s orders or otherwise
prosecute this case, his complaint is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 	See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir.
2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty.
Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action
sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).
SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2026.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00215-CDL-AGH Document 11 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 2