Chappell v. Lewis et al

Filing 21

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint: Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Courts inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts July 14, 2017 Order. Objections to R&R due by 9/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 8/22/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALD CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LT. D. LEWIS, et. al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-659
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

On June 17, 2016, plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 1). On August 8, 2016, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis on the ground that plaintiff is precluded from proceeding without prepayment of
fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (See Docs. 4, 8, 14). Plaintiff was ordered to pay the full
$400 dollar filing fee or this action would be dismissed for want of prosecution. (See Doc. 14,
16). Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See
Doc. 17). However, on June 22, 2017, plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Doc. 19).
On July 14, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order that plaintiff pay the full filing fee
required to commence this action within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff was advised that
“failure to pay the full $400 fee within thirty days will result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id.
at PageID 77).
To date, more than thirty (30) days after the Court’s July 14, 2017 Order, plaintiff has
failed to comply with or respond to the Order.
“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, this case
should be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 14, 2017 Order. In re
Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of
prosecution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

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

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RONALD CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 1:16-cv-659
Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

LT. D. LEWIS, et. al.,
Defendants.

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).