Johnson v. State of Tennessee, No. 3:2015cv00212 - Document 4 (E.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 6/26/15. (c/m)(ADA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnson v. State of Tennessee Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCUS JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:15-CV-212-TAV-HBG MEMORANDUM OPINION This is a prisoner’s pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter is before the Court upon the postal return of an order the Court mailed to plaintiff at the address he listed as his current address in his complaint. The postal authorities returned the mail to the Court more than ten days ago with the envelope marked “RTS, Refused, Unable to Forward” [Doc. 3 p. 1]. Accordingly, it is clear that plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with notice of his correct address and, without his correct and current address, neither the Court nor defendant can communicate with him regarding his case. Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED, sua sponte, for failure to follow orders of this Court and for want of prosecution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (recognizing court’s authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for lack of prosecution); White v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 01-229234, 34 F.App’x 210, 211, 2002 WL 926998, at *1 (6th Cir. May 7, 2002) (finding that pro se prisoner’s complaint “was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution because he failed Dockets.Justia.com to keep the district court apprised of his current address”); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in good faith and would be totally frivolous. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A separate judgment will enter. ENTER: s/ Thomas A. Varlan CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
