Hankins v. Waddle et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation and dismissing 1 Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Court further certifies that an appeal of this Court's Order would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court denies Hankins leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Douglas R. Cole on 4/19/23. (sct)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:21-cv-00474-DRC-CHG Doc #: 16 Filed: 04/19/23 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHELSEY N. HANKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICKY WADDLE, et al.,

Case No. 1:21-cv-474
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Gentry

Defendants.
ORDER
Chelsey Hankins sued Ricky Waddle and others alleging they violated her civil
rights during her incarceration at the Lawrence County Jail. (Doc. 1). The Court
previously dismissed all of Hankins’s claims except for her individual-capacity claim
against Waddle. (See Doc. 11). Waddle never filed an answer, but Hankins never
requested an entry of default either. More than a year went by without either party
taking any action. So the Magistrate Judge issued a show-cause order on October 6,
2022, requiring Hankins to explain why her case should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution. (Doc. 14). Hankins did not respond. Consequently, the Magistrate
Judge’s January 6, 2023, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15) recommends
that this Court dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for want of prosecution.
The R&R also advised the parties that failure to object within 14 days may
result in forfeiture of rights, including the right to District Court review. (Id. at #54).
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress,
in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s

Case: 1:21-cv-00474-DRC-CHG Doc #: 16 Filed: 04/19/23 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 56

report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530
(6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ...
is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C. § (b)(1)(C). Neither party objected. But even without any
objections, the advisory committee notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
suggest that the Court still must “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See also Redmon v. Noel, No.
1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting cases).
The Court sees no clear error here. While the Court takes care to construe a
pro se litigant’s filings liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972),
such a liberal construction does not relieve Hankins of her obligation to comply with
the Court’s procedural rules. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
The Court is empowered to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution,
which the R&R recommends here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Knoll v. Am. Tel.
& Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999). The R&R also capably analyzes the
factors in play here and concludes that all of them favor dismissal. (Doc. 15, #52–53).
Given the lack of action on this case since mid-2021, even in the face of the Magistrate
Judge’s show-cause order, the Court agrees. But given Hankins’s pro se status and
that Waddle never filed an answer, the Court’s dismissal will not be with prejudice.
The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 15) and DISMISSES the Complaint (Doc.
1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk enter judgment and
TERMINATE this matter on the Court’s docket. The Court further CERTIFIES
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that, for the reasons stated above, an appeal of this

2

Case: 1:21-cv-00474-DRC-CHG Doc #: 16 Filed: 04/19/23 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 57

Court’s Order would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114
F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Court DENIES Hankins leave to appeal in forma
pauperis.
SO ORDERED.
April 19, 2023
DATE

DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3