KILBY v. MOODY et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
DEAN GIBSON KILBY, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	CASE NO.: 7:24-CV-132 (LAG)
:
CO1 MOODY, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
:
ORDER
Plaintiff Dean Gibson Kilby, a prisoner at Augusta State Medical Prison in
Grovetown, Georgia, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1, 6). 	He also
moved for leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 13). Thereafter,
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP was granted, and Plaintiff was ordered to pay an initial
partial filing fee. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff was given fourteen days to pay the fee and was
cautioned that his failure to do so could result in the dismissal of this case. (Id.).
The time for compliance passed, during which Plaintiff did not pay the initial partial
filing fee or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order. Moreover, the Order for Plaintiff to
pay the initial partial filing fee, which was sent to Plaintiff at Augusta State Medical Prison,
was returned to this Court by the Post Office, and a review of the Georgia Department of
Corrections Inmate Search shows that Plaintiff was released from Augusta State Medical
Prison on July 9, 2025. (Doc. 15); see Georgia Department of Corrections Inmate Search,
https://services.gdc.ga.gov/GDC/OffenderQuery/jsp/OffQryRedirector.jsp
[https://perma.cc/2EXL-DCRL] (searched “Kilby, Dean”) (last visited November 18,
2025). As it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court informed of his current address,
and insofar as this Court has no information as to Plaintiff’s current whereabouts, the
Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause to the Court why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order to pay the initial partial filing fee.
Case 7:24-cv-00132-LAG-AGH Document 17 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2
(Doc. 16). Plaintiff was given fourteen days to respond and was cautioned that his failure
to do so would likely result in the dismissal of this case. (Id.).
More than fourteen days have now passed since the show cause Order 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, the 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); then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
1978)) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of December, 2025.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:24-cv-00132-LAG-AGH Document 17 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 2