LIND v. STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BRANDON RICHARD LIND, :
:
Petitioner, :
:
V. : NO. 5:25-cv-00324-TES-CHW
:
STATE OF GEORGIA, :
:
Respondent. :
:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Brandon Richard Lind filed a handwritten document, which was docketed
in this Court as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1.
Because this document was not on the form for a § 2254 petition, the United States
Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to refile his petition on the proper form if he wanted
to proceed with this action. ECF No. 7. The Magistrate Judge also ordered Petitioner to
complete this Court’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id.
The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner fourteen days to file his recast petition and
new motion to proceed in forma pauperis and cautioned him that his failure to do so may
result in the Court dismissing this case. Id. More than fourteen days passed after the
Magistrate Judge entered that order, and Petitioner did not submit a recast petition or a new
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Moreover, Petitioner did not otherwise respond to
the Court’s order.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge ordered Petitioner to show cause why this case
Case 5:25-cv-00324-TES-CHW Document 9 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

2
should not be dismissed based on his failure to file a recast petition and new motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8. The Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner another
fourteen days to respond and cautioned him that his failure to do so would likely result in
the Court dismissing this case. Id.
More than fourteen days have passed since the Magistrate Judge entered the show
cause order, and Petitioner has not responded to that order or otherwise communicated with
the Court. Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s orders or to otherwise
prosecute this case, the Court now DISMISSES the petition 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 11th day of December, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00324-TES-CHW Document 9 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2