Damron v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint filed by Tracy Damron. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution; and (2) The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an ap peal of this Court's Order would not be taken in good faith. Objections to R&R due by 6/28/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 6/11/13. (mtw) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/11/2013: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (mtw).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

TRACY DAMRON,
Plaintiff,
vs
WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-14
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) in Lucasville,
Ohio. On January 9, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia opened this action and transferred a letter from plaintiff, which was construed as a
complaint “filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unsafe prison conditions” at SOCF, to
this Court for further proceedings. (Doc. 1). On May 2, 2013, the undersigned issued an Order
noting that plaintiff failed to specify the names of the staff members or others who he alleges
have failed to protect him. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was provided with a complaint form and directed
to set forth the facts of his claims and the relief he is seeking within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff
was further advised that if he “fails to comply with [the] Order, the Court shall dismiss his case
for want of prosecution.” Id. at 1-2. To date, over thirty days after the Order was issued,
plaintiff has yet to submit a completed complaint form.
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, 630-631 (1962). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). 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). Accordingly, dismissal is
appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal
of this Court’s Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601 (6th Cir. 1997).

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TRACY DAMRON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:13-cv-14

vs

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendant.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).

3