LOWTHER v. MUSCOGEE COUNTY JAIL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
TRENTON LOWTHER, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
V. 	:
: 	NO. 4:25-cv-00232-CDL-AGH
MUSCOGEE COUNTY JAIL, 	:
:
:
Defendant. 	:
_________________________________:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Trenton Lowther, a detainee in the Muscogee County Jail in Columbus,
Georgia, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff did not, however, either pay the $405.00 filing fee for this case or move for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	Therefore, Plaintiff was ordered to either pay the
filing fee or submit a properly completed motion to proceed IFP. 	ECF No. 3 at 1.
Plaintiff was also ordered to recast his complaint if he wanted to proceed with this case.
Id. at 1-2. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to (1) refile his complaint and (2) either pay
the $405.00 filing fee or submit a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Id. at 3. 	Plaintiff was also cautioned that his failure to fully and timely comply may result
in the dismissal of this action. 	Id.
The time for compliance passed, and Plaintiff failed to complete any of the ordered
actions 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 refile
Case 4:25-cv-00232-CDL-AGH Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
his complaint and either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. 	ECF
No. 4. 	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
Plaintiff has not responded to that order. 	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 18th day of November, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Case 4:25-cv-00232-CDL-AGH Document 5 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 2