Finley v. Mohr et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Objections to R&R due by 3/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 2/21/2017. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 2:16-cv-870
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Kemp
Gary Mohr, Director, et al.,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a prisoner civil rights case.
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
did not file a response.
On November 18, 2016,
Plaintiff Billy Finley
Consequently, by order dated January
12, 2017, the Court directed Mr. Finley to file a response within
fourteen days and advised him that his failure to do so may
result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.
Mr. Finley has not responded to this order.
If the plaintiff fails properly to prosecute an action,
it can be dismissed either pursuant to the Court's inherent
power to control its docket, or involuntarily under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b).
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962);
Boudwin v. Graystone Insurance Co., 756 F.2d 399 (5th Cir.
Dismissal for failure to prosecute can occur where,
for example, a plaintiff fails to respond to an order
directing that he file a brief.
Dynes v. Army Air Force
Exchange Service, 720 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1983).
Ordinarily, some notice of the court's intention to dismiss
for failure to prosecute is required, see Harris v.
Callwood, No. 86-4001 (6th Cir. April 21, 1988), but that
requirement is met if the Court affords a plaintiff a
reasonable period of time to comply with orders before the
Sepia Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Toledo,
462 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1972)(per curiam).
Such a dismissal
is also appropriate for failure to respond to a summary
See Stanley v. Continental Oil Co., 536
F.2d 914 (10th Cir.
1976); see also Lang v. Wyrick, 590 F.2d
257 (8th Cir. 1978).
The facts of this case indicate a clear failure to
The Court specifically advised Mr. Finley
of the date by which his response to the motion to dismiss was
due, and that this action would be dismissed if he failed to
No response was filed.
The Court’s order has not been
returned as undeliverable, and the Court assumes Mr. Finley
He has not offered any explanation for his failure
Therefore, the Court can only conclude that the
failure to respond is intentional.
An intentional failure to
respond to a court order is sufficient justification for a
For this reason, it is recommended that this action be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file
and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,
together with supporting authority for the objection(s).
of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.
objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,
may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the district judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the
right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the
Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?