PARTRIDGE v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
RAHEEAM PARTRIDGE, 	:
:
Plaintiff 	:
: 	NO. 5:25-CV-00311-MTT-CHW
VS. 	:
:
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF 	:
CORRECTIONS, et al., 	:
:
Defendants 	:
__________________________________
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Raheeam Partridge, a prisoner at the Macon State Prison in
Oglethorpe, Georgia, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 	ECF No. 1. 	On August 26,
2025, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and provided instructions on how to do
so. 	ECF No. 4. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply with the Court’s order and
was informed that failure to comply could result in dismissal of this action. 	Id. 	Plaintiff
failed to respond. 	Therefore, on September 29, 2025, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause
why this civil action should not be dismissed for failure to respond to a Court Order. 	ECF
No. 5. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond or otherwise submit his recast
complaint. 	Id. 	Plaintiff failed to file a recast complaint.
Generously, on November 4, 2025, the Court again notified Plaintiff that he failed
to file a recast complaint as instructed. 	ECF No. 6. 	Plaintiff was again ordered to show
cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply
with the Court’s order. 	Id. 	The Court informed Plaintiff that this action could be
Case 5:25-cv-00311-MTT-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 2

2
dismissed if he failed to respond to the order to show cause or otherwise file his amended
complaint as instructed. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to comply with the
Court’s order. 	Plaintiff has failed to respond.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or otherwise
prosecute this case, his complaint is 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) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v.
Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)); Duong Thanh Ho v.
Costello, 757 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sua sponte dismissing without prejudice prisoner's pro se § 1983 complaint
for failure to comply with court order to file amended complaint where order expressly
informed prisoner of deficiencies in his complaint and rules that he needed to follow in
filing amended complaint).
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of December, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell_____________
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00311-MTT-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 2