Jackson v. Cincinnati
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of prosecution and failure to abide by a Court Order and TERMINATES this case from Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 5/17/2011. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2011: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ROBERT JACKSON,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CINCINNATI,
Defendant.
NO. 10-CV-693
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
April 13, 2011 Report and Recommendation (doc. 7), to which no
party has filed an objection.
The Magistrate Judge reported the background of this case
as follows.
Plaintiff brought a pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983 (doc. 1).
The Court ordered the Plaintiff to show
cause on April 6, 2011 (doc. 5).
Plaintiff has not responded to
the Court’s order to show cause and it also appears that Plaintiff
did not notify the Court of his change of address (doc. 6).
As
such, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint
be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to abide by a
court order (doc. 7).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation well-taken. District courts have
the inherent 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 (1962).
Failure of a party to respond to an
order of the court warrants invocation of the Court's inherent
power.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Sixth Circuit has held that
dismissal is an appropriate sanction pursuant to Rule 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when there is a “clear record of
delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Carter v. City of
Memphis, Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980)(quoting Silas
v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 586 F.2d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1978);
see also Coleman v. American Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091, 1095 (6th
Cir. 1994).
“The key is a failure to prosecute, whether styled as
a failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, failure to file a
pre-trial statement. . . or failure to comply with the pre-trial
order.”
Carter, 636 F.2d at 161 (quoting J.F. Edwards Const. Co.
v. Anderson Safeway Guard Rail Corp., 542 F.2d 1318, 1323 (7th Cir.
1976)(per curiam)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s
order and failed to notify the Court of any change of address.
Plaintiff has therefore failed to prosecute his claims against
Defendant. Consequently, the Court finds appropriate the dismissal
of Plaintiff’s claims.
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS
Report
and
Recommendation
(doc.
7),
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of prosecution and failure
to abide by a court order, and TERMINATES this case from the
2
Court’s docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2011
/s/ S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?