Quinn v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 59

ORDER - In accordance with the foregoing, the report andrecommendation (Doc. 55) is adopted. Plaintiffs claims forinjunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice as moot, and anyother remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack ofprosecution. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 7/2/2013. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Richard L. Quinn, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:11-cv-268

Robin Knab, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court for consideration of the
report and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge on June
12, 2013.

In the instant case, plaintiff asserted claims under 42

U.S.C. §1983, alleging that defendants impeded his ability to
exercise his religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, the First Amendment, and the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
this

action

was

filed,

plaintiff

was

Chillicothe Correctional Institution.

incarcerated

dismissed

that

plaintiff’s

claims

without

prejudice

because

at

the

However, plaintiff was

released from prison on March 24, 2013.
recommended

At the time

for

The magistrate judge
injunctive

plaintiff’s

relief

release

be

from

custody rendered those claims moot.

No objections to the report

and recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, the court will

adopt the report and recommendation.
The magistrate judge further noted that plaintiff had failed
to notify the court of his change in address. The magistrate judge
ordered plaintiff to supply the court with an updated address
within seven days if he wished to proceed with this action, and
cautioned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would

result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff failed to respond to this order or to furnish a current
address.
Plaintiff has failed to comply with his affirmative duty to
provide the court with a valid address and to notify the court of
any change in address.

See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL

163765 at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994).

By failing to keep the court

apprised of his current address, plaintiff has demonstrated a lack
of prosecution of his action.

See Walker v. Cognis Oleo Chem.,

LLC, No. 1:07-cv-289, 2010 WL 717275 at *1 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 26,
2010).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), district courts have the

authority to dismiss an action for the failure of a plaintiff to
prosecute a claim or to comply with the Federal Rules or any order
of the court.

Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d

731, 736 (6th Cir. 2008).

The court concludes that dismissal for

failure to prosecute is warranted in this case.
In

accordance

with

the

foregoing,

recommendation (Doc. 55) is adopted.

the

report

and

Plaintiff’s claims for

injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice as moot, and any
other remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
prosecution.

Date: July 2, 2013

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2