Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lucus v. Kuehne, 16-cv-1163. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180516h33 Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN , Magistrate Judge . On February 20, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before March 12, 2018, why Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 34) should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated. (Doc. 35). The Order further stated that Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge that the pending motion be
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On February 20, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, on or before March 12, 2018, why Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 34) should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated. (Doc. 35). The Order further stated that Plaintiff's failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge that the pending motion be granted. The time deadline set forth in the Order has passed without a responsive filing by Plaintiff

Accordingly, Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this matter and to obey an Order of the Court warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-10 (6th Cir.1991). District courts have the power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution to "manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). See also Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 109. Though plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as stated by the Supreme Court, "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. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and for failure to obey a Court Order. As no additional claims remain pending, the undersigned further RECOMMENDS that this case be CLOSED.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation ("R&R") within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer