United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
JIMMY D. BROWNING, #145211 PLAINTIFF
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
T. WINGATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Jimmy D.
Browning filed this § 1983 civil action on July 16,
2019. Compl. . Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated by the
Mississippi Department of Corrections at the East Mississippi
Correctional Facility, Meridian, Mississippi. Id. at
2. The Defendant is the Mississippi Department of
Corrections. Id. at 1-2. After consideration of the
record and relevant legal authority, and for the reasons
discussed below, the Court finds that this civil action
should be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's
failure to comply with the Orders of the Court.
Court entered an Order  on August 16, 2019, directing
Plaintiff to file a written response providing information
concerning the claims in his Complaint . Plaintiff was
directed to file his written response to that Order  on or
before September 9, 2019. Plaintiff had been warned in the
previous Order  of the Court that failure to comply with
an Order of this Court or failure to advise of a change of
address could result in the dismissal of this civil action.
The envelope  containing the Order  was returned by the
postal service with a notation “Return to Sender, Not
Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward” and a
handwritten note “not here.” Even though
Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Order or
failure to provide the Court with a change of address could
result in the dismissal of the instant civil action,
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Order  or contact the
Court concerning this case.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Order , the Court then
entered an Order  to Show Cause on September 16, 2019. The
Order  to Show Cause directed Plaintiff to file on or
before October 8, 2019, a written response providing
information concerning the claims in his Complaint . The
envelope  containing that Order  to Show Cause was
returned by the postal service with a notation “Return
to Sender, No. Such Street, Unable to Forward” and a
handwritten note “released.” Even though
Plaintiff has not complied and has not provided the Court
with a change of address, the Court provided Plaintiff with a
final opportunity to comply with the Orders [6, 8] directing
Plaintiff to file a response and provide the information
needed by the Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint .
See Second and Final Order to Show Cause .
October 23, 2019, a Second and Final Order to Show Cause 
was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response on or
before November 7, 2019, and provide the information needed
by the Court to screen Plaintiff's Complaint .
Id. at 2. Plaintiff was warned that failure to
comply with the Order  or failure to advise of a change
of address would lead to the dismissal of the instant civil
action without further notice. Id. Plaintiff has not
Court has the authority to dismiss an action for
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b), and under its inherent authority to
dismiss the action sua sponte. See Link v. Wabash
Railroad, 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); McCullough v.
Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court
must be able to clear its “calendars of cases that have
remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of
the parties seeking relief . . . so as to achieve the orderly
and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link,
370 U.S. at 630-31. Such a “sanction is necessary in
order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending
cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars” of the
Court. Id. at 629-30.
did not comply with the Orders [6, 8, 10] entered by the
Court even after being warned several times in previous Court
documents that failure to do so could result in the dismissal
of his case. Order  at 2; Order  at 2. Plaintiff has
not complied with the Court's Order or otherwise
contacted the Court since July 31, 2019. Such inaction
presents a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by
Plaintiff. It is apparent that Plaintiff no longer wishes to
pursue this lawsuit. As the record demonstrates, lesser
sanctions than dismissal have not prompted “diligent
prosecution, ” but instead such efforts have proven
futile. See Tello v. Comm'r., 410 F.3d 743, 744
(5th Cir. 2005). Dismissal without prejudice is warranted.
reasons stated herein, this civil action will be dismissed
THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this civil action is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to obey the
Court's Orders and to prosecute. A separate final
judgment will ...