Reed v. Clagg et al

Filing 20

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 Complaint filed by Plaintiff John Reed. It is RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and for failure to obey an Order of the Court and this case be CLOSED. Objections to R&R due by 12/19/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 12/2/2013. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/2/2013: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN REED,

Case No. 1:13-cv-351

Plaintiff,

Weber, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
MRS. CLAGG, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) in Lucasville,
Ohio, brings this action against SOCF employees Mrs. Clagg, Dr. Bowers and John Doe
I. Plaintiff’s pro se complaint alleges a claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs by
defendants in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The record reflects that on September 16, 2013, a Court Order mailed to Plaintiff
was subsequently returned to the Clerk by the United States Postal Service as “paroled,
no such number." (Doc. 13). Plaintiff was previously notified by the Court's Order of June
24, 2013, that he must inform the Court promptly of any changes of address which occur
during the pendency of this lawsuit. (Doc. 5).
Thereafter, on October 3, 2013, the court issued an order to Plaintiff to show cause
why this Court should not dismiss his complaint for failure to obey a Court Order and for lack
of prosecution. (Doc. 16). The Order further advised Plaintiff that his complaint would be
dismissed if he failed to timely comply with the Show Cause Order. Id. To date, Plaintiff has

filed no response and the show cause order was returned to the Court as “refused/return
to sender.” (Doc. 18).
By failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address, Plaintiff demonstrates
a lack of prosecution of his action. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir.1991)
(explaining that a pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution
of his cause of action); Barber v. Runyon, No. 93–6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir.
May 2, 1994) (explaining that a pro se litigant has a duty to supply the court with notice of
any and all changes in his address).
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 (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 case be DISMISSED
for want of prosecution and for failure to obey an Order of the Court and this case be
CLOSED.

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

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN REED.,

Case No. 1:13-cv-351

Plaintiffs,

Weber, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
MRS. CLAGG, et al.,
Defendants.

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 14 DAYS of the filing date of
this R&R. 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 14 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).

3