Filed: Feb. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; (2) DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 11, 13) BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (3) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. This civil case is before the Court on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants City of Kettering, Ohio and Judge Thomas Hanna. Docs. 11, 13. Memoranda opposing the motions to dismiss were due on or before December 1, 2014. See S.D. Ohio C
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; (2) DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 11, 13) BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (3) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. This civil case is before the Court on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants City of Kettering, Ohio and Judge Thomas Hanna. Docs. 11, 13. Memoranda opposing the motions to dismiss were due on or before December 1, 2014. See S.D. Ohio Ci..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; (2) DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 11, 13) BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (3) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET
MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
This civil case is before the Court on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants City of Kettering, Ohio and Judge Thomas Hanna. Docs. 11, 13. Memoranda opposing the motions to dismiss were due on or before December 1, 2014. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. To date, pro se Plaintiff has failed to file memoranda in opposition to these motions.
On December 4, 2014, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause by December 19, 2014 as to why the two motions should not be granted for the reasons stated therein. Doc. 14. The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to respond satisfactorily to the Show Cause Order could result in a dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Id. On January 14, 2015, the Court sua sponte afforded pro se Plaintiff additional time to comply with the Court's Show Cause Order, and Ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause by January 28, 2015 as to why the two motions to dismiss should not be granted for the reasons stated therein. Doc. 15. That Order specifically advised Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the Show Cause Order would result in the undersigned issuing this Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. Doc. 15 at PageID 56-57. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file memoranda in opposition to the motions to dismiss, or responses to the Court's Orders to Show Cause.
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and to obey two Orders of the Court warrants dismissal of this case. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (district courts have an inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-110 (6th Cir. 1991). Though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, "we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel." McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: (1) pro se Plaintiff's complaint (doc. 2) be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute; (2) Defendants' motions to dismiss (docs. 11, 13) be DENIED as moot; and (3) this case be TERMINATED on the Court's docket. The Clerk is ORDERED to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his address of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
