Rodgers v. Aramark Correctional Services et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims, and with respect to the Moving Defendants, DISMISSED with prejudice. DEYNYING as MOOT Motion to Dismiss. This case is CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Algenon L Marbley on 3/10/2025. (cw)(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
TRACY RODGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.: 23-cv-2866
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 26) recommending that this Court dismiss this case and deny as moot the pending motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff, Tracy Rodgers, brought this case alleging claims arising from an
employee of Defendant Aramark Correctional Services serving Plaintiff and other inmates food
removed from a trash can. Plaintiff claims this incident caused Plaintiff and several others to suffer
from gastrointestinal issues. (ECF No. 5).
On July 15, 2024, Defendants David Agee, Raymond Corbett, Fredrick Epperson, William
Harlan, Nurse Skye Murray, Timothy Tatman, Stephen Williams, and interested party State of Ohio
(the “Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff did not respond. On
December 13, 2024, an Order to Show Cause was entered, ordering Plaintiff to show cause why the
Motion to Dismiss should not be treated as unopposed and why the case should not be dismissed for
want of prosecution. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff did not respond.
On January 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation noting
that there are various unserved defendants and that “since initiating this action on September 6,
2023, Plaintiff has not actively participated in the prosecution of this case in any way.” (ECF No.
1

26 at 3). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b), courts have inherent authority to
dismiss a plaintiff’s action for failure to prosecute or comply with rules of procedure or court orders.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). With Rule 41(b) in mind, the Magistrate Judge recommended this Court:
(1) dismiss claims against the Moving Defendants with prejudice for failure to prosecute; (2) deny
the Motion to Dismiss as moot; and (3) dismiss claims against the unserved defendants pursuant to
Rule 4(m) for failure to perfect service. (Id. at 3–4). The Report and Recommendation notified the
parties that a failure to object within the applicable time period would result in a waiver of the right
to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo. (Id. at 22).
This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections have
been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired,
this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) as this
Court’s findings of facts and law. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED and, with respect to the
Moving Defendants, the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and their pending Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 24) is DENIED as moot. This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: March 10, 2025

2