govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_21-cv-00940-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
JOSEPH MICHAEL DEVON ENGEL, )  
 )  
                         Plaintiff, )  
 )  
               v. )           No. 4:21-CV-940 AGF 
 )  
CORIZON MEDICAL, et al., )  
 )  
                         Defendants. )  
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court upon review of t he file.  Plaintiff Joseph Michael Devon 
filed this matter in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, alleging 
violations of his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  ECF No. 1.  Because Plaintiff’s complaint pertains 
to conditions of confinement at Missouri Eastern Corre ctional Center (“MECC”), located within 
the Eastern District of Missouri, the case was transferred here on July 29, 2021.  ECF Nos. 5 -6.  
On October 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order discussing Plaintiff’s status as a three-striker under 
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)), holding Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis in abeyance, and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) 
days.  ECF No. 7.  The Court cautioned Plaintiff that his failure to timely comply with the Order 
would result in the dismissal of the case without further notice.  Plaintiff’s respo nse was due on 
November 24, 2021.    
To date, Plaintiff has neither responded to the Court’s Order nor sought additional time to 
do so.  Plaintiff was given meaningful notice of what was expected, he was cautioned that his case 
would be dismissed if he failed to timely comply, and he was given ample time to comply.  The 
Court will therefore dismiss this action, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with 
Case: 4:21-cv-00940-AGF     Doc. #:  8     Filed: 12/13/21     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
 
2 
 
the Court’s Order of October 25, 2021 and his failure to prosecute his case.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 
41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (the authority of a court to 
dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution is inherent power governed “by the control necessarily 
vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition 
of cases”); Brown v. Frey , 806 F.2d 801, 803  (8th Cir. 1986) (a district court has t he power to 
dismiss an action for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court order). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.  A separate 
order of dismissal will be entered herewith.   
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. 
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED  that an appeal from this dismissal woul d not be taken in 
good faith.  
 Dated this 13th day of December 2021. 
 
 
 
 
    
  AUDREY G. FLEISSIG 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
  
 
Case: 4:21-cv-00940-AGF     Doc. #:  8     Filed: 12/13/21     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight