Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Willie James Atmore v. Bibb County Law Enforcement Center, et al.

District Court, M.D. Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00519

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

MACON DIVISION

WILLIE JAMES ATMORE, :

:

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 5:25-cv-519-CAR-ALS

:

BIBB COUNTY LAW :

ENFORCEMENT CENTER, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

________________________________ :

                    ORDER                                        

Plaintiff Willie James Atmore, an individual most recently housed in the Central
State Hospital in Milledgeville, Georgia, has filed a pro se complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). On December 2, 2025, the Clerk issued Plaintiff a notice
of deficiency advising Plaintiff that Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
requires “[e]very pleading, written motion and other papers” to be “signed by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented.” The Clerk thus instructed Plaintiff to re-file his
signed document within fourteen (14) days of the notice of deficiency and warned Plaintiff
that failure to comply with the notice could result in the dismissal of his case.

The time for compliance has now passed without a response from Plaintiff. As
Plaintiff was previously warned, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that “[t]he
court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the . . . party’s attention” (emphasis added). The Court therefore STRIKES
Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with Rule 11, and this case is DISMISSED
without prejudice.1

SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2026.

                     s/ C. Ashley Royal                          
                     C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE               
                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                

1 Dismissal of this case is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b), which permits dismissal of an action where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.” See, e.g., 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 Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.
1978)). Dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where
a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, “especially where the litigant has been
forewarned.” Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 656 (11th Cir.
2009) (quoting Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)) (upholding
dismissal without prejudice of pro se prisoner’s complaint for failure to follow court’s
instructions).

2