Boyd v. Chillicothe Correctional Institute

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS dismissing this action for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 8/21/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 8/7/2018. (ew)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES RYAN BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-1003
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Jolson

CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 24, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff to resubmit a summons and U.S. Marshal
Form 285 for each named Defendant (see Doc. 5) within fourteen (14) days so that the United
States Marshals Service could effect service of process by certified mail. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff,
however, failed to do so. Consequently, on July 12, 2018, the Court again ordered Plaintiff to
resubmit a summons and U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each named Defendant within fourteen (14)
days so that the United States Marshals Service could effect service of process by certified mail.
(Doc. 12). Plaintiff was warned that noncompliance with the July 12, 2018 Order may result in a
recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff again failed to resubmit any
summons.
The Court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute under its inherent power to control
its docket, see Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962), or under Rule 41(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that this
action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) 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). A Judge 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. Upon proper 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 7, 2018

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2