Ruff v. Ohio Reformatory for Women
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Starlette Ruff - It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 12/1/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr on 11/17/22. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Case: 2:22-cv-03439-EAS-PBS Doc #: 7 Filed: 11/17/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 59
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OHIO REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN,
Case No. 2:22-cv-3439
District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 16, 2022, plaintiff, a prisoner at the Ohio Reformatory for Women, filed a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. (Doc. 1). On September 20, 2022,
because plaintiff failed to file a complaint and her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is incomplete, the Court issued a Deficiency Order requiring plaintiff to submit a complaint and
pay the filing fee or submit a complete in forma pauperis application within thirty (30) days.
(See Doc. 2). Plaintiff was advised that “[i]f plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court
shall dismiss this case for want of prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 42).
The Deficiency Order was returned to the Court on September 26, 2022, for failure to
include an inmate number. (Doc. 4). On September 29, 2022, the Clerk of Court resent the
Deficiency Order, however it was again returned, marked “last name does not match.” (Doc. 6).
On October 5, 2022, noting that plaintiff’s name according to the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction records is Starlette S. Bartrez, the Clerk of Court resent the
Deficiency Order to plaintiff. (See Doc. 5).
To date, more than thirty (30) days after the October 5, 2022 mailing, plaintiff has failed
Case: 2:22-cv-03439-EAS-PBS Doc #: 7 Filed: 11/17/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 60
to comply with the Deficiency 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).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of
s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
November 17, 2022
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:22-cv-03439-EAS-PBS Doc #: 7 Filed: 11/17/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 61
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the
R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after
being served with a copy of those objections. 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).
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?