United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
a civil action filed by a local detainee pro se. The case was
referred to this magistrate judge for all pretrial
proceedings pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e)
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff, Antonio Anthony Fair, filed this case on April 12,
2017, he was detained at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center
(“ASGDC”) in Richland County, South Carolina. ECF
No. 1. The only address that he provided to the court at that
time was the address for ASGDC; therefore, the court's
initial Order, subsequent Orders, and a Report and
Recommendation were mailed to Plaintiff at ASGDC. ECF Nos. 6,
9, 14, 22, 23, 25, 47, 49, 59, 69. Plaintiff received all
mailings from the court and actively participated in the case
until shortly after he filed a change-of-address form on
October 2, 2017, notifying the court that his new address was
a detention center in Appling, Georgia. ECF No. 76. Since
that time, all mailings sent by the court to Plaintiff at the
Appling, Georgia address have been returned by the United
States Postal Service, indicating the mail was undeliverable.
ECF Nos. 77, 84.
November 14, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss this
case for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 87. Defendants assert
that they have been unable to complete discovery in this case
because they cannot contact Plaintiff as he has not updated
his address as required by the court. Id. A
Roseboro Order was issued on November 15,
2017. ECF No. 88. The mail in which the Order
was sent to Plaintiff at the Appling, Georgia address has
been returned undeliverable. ECF No. 90.
initial Order in this case makes it clear that a pro se
litigant has an obligation to provide an up-to-date mailing
address to the court. The Order reads:
You are ordered to always keep the Clerk of Court advised
in writing (Post Office Box 2317,
Florence, South Carolina 29503) if your address
changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other
matters that specify deadlines for you to meet will be
received by you. If as a result of your failure to comply
with this Order, you fail to meet a deadline set by this
court, your case may be dismissed for violating this
Order. Therefore, if you have a change of address
before this case is ended, you must comply with this Order by
immediately advising the Clerk of Court in writing of such
change of address and providing the court with the docket
number of all pending cases you have filed with this court.
Your failure to do so will not be excused by the court.
clear that Plaintiff received the Order in which the
obligation to keep his address updated was noted. Plaintiff
is obviously aware of the requirement because he submitted a
change-of-address form in October 2017. Plaintiff is also
aware that failure to provide updated address information may
lead to dismissal of this case. However, at this time it
appears that he has not provided the court with a useable
mailing address. The court should not allow a case such as
this one to languish on the docket without participation by
Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff's failure to provide a
useable updated address creates prejudice for Defendants who
are attempting to defend against the claims made by Plaintiff
in his Complaint.
failure to provide an updated address and failure to
prosecute this case subjects this case to dismissal.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district courts may
dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to comply with
“any order of the court.”); Chandler Leasing
Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir. 1982) (court
may dismiss sua sponte); see also Lewis v.
Hardy, 248 F. App'x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007)
(stating that “the failure of a pro se litigant to
notify the district court of an address change may be
considered by the district court as an additional cause for
dismissal for failure to prosecute”); Ward v.
Berry, 2011 WL 2175087 (M.D. Ga. June 3, 2011)
(dismissing plaintiff's claim for failure to prosecute,
comply with court orders, and provide an updated address).
it is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF
No. 87, be granted and that this case be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to provide an updated
address and prosecute this case in a timely manner.
parties' attention is directed to the important notice on
the following page.
of Right to File Objections to Report ...