ROWE v. STANCIL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
RICHARD CARL ROWE, III,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 7:25-cv-200-WLS-ALS
JAMES L STANCIL, III,
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Complaint filed by prose Plaintiff Richard Carl Rowe,
lll, an inmate most recently incarcerated at the Burruss Correctional Training Center
("Burruss") in Forsyth, Georgia, seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February
I 0, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to (I) file a complete and proper motion for leave to
proceed in Jonna pauperis, to include a certified copy of his prison trust fund account
information and (2) recast his Complaint on the Court's standard form. Plaintiff was given
fourteen (14) days to comply, and he was warned that the failure to fully and timely comply
with the Court's orders and instructions could result in the dismissal of this case. 	See
generally ECF No. 4.
The February I 0th Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable, but it indicated
that Plaintiff had been moved to Burruss. On March 5, 2026, the Court therefore forwarded
a copy of the February I 0th Order to Plaintiff at Burruss and allowed him additional time
to respond. 	By April 7, 2026, however, Plaintiff still had not responded. 	As such, the
Case 7:25-cv-00200-WLS-ALS Document 13 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 3

Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and show cause why this case should not be dismissed
for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the orders and instructions of the Court. Plaintiff was
again given fourteen (14) clays to respond, and he was again ordered to comply with the
February I 0th Order if wished to proceed with this case. 	He was also warned again that
the failure to folly and timely comply with the Court's orders and instructions could result
in the dismissal of this case. See generally ECF No. 12.
The time for compliance has again expired without a response from Plaintiff. 	A
district court has authority to manage its docket to expeditiously resolve cases, and this
authority includes the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply
with the court's orders. 	Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv.,
Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2009) (first citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501
U.S. 32, 43 (1991); and then citing Feel. R. Civ. P. 4l(b)) (finding court did not err in
dismissing the third amended complaint for 	failure to follow the court's instructions
regarding how to 	amend 	the 	complaint). 	Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	is 	generally
appropriate pursuant to Rule 41 (b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order,
"especially where the litigant has been forewarned." 	Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff's
Dep 't, 331 F. App'x 654, 656 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting !vfoon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
837 (11th Cir. 1989)) (upholding dismissal without prejudice ofprose prisoner's complaint
for failure to follow court's instructions).
2
Case 7:25-cv-00200-WLS-ALS Document 13 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, because Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court's February 10, 2026 Order. 	Plaintiffs pending motion to
proceed in for,na pauper is is (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 	/'{JI. clay of May 2026.
w. LOUIS sANDS,R.JlJDoE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Case 7:25-cv-00200-WLS-ALS Document 13 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 3