Bhamidipati v. Kaptur

Filing 25

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 6 Complaint filed by Rama Krishna Mohan Bhamidipati. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's 8/29/2024 Order. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Def endant Sylvania Township Police or Office of Chief of Police, Danilynn Miller or Defendant Jessica Parker WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b). Response to objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to R&R due by 10/9/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 9/25/2024. (vb) (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
RAMA KRISHNA MOHAN
BHAMIDIPATI,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:24-cv-3119
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.
MARCY KAPTUR, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, initiated this case in the Supreme
Court of Ohio on May 13, 2024. Bhamidipati v. Sylvania Township Police, et al, Sup. Ct. Ohio,
Case No. 2024-0668. Defendant Kaptur removed this case on June 5, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On
August 29, 2024, the Court noted that “it does not appear that Plaintiff has effectuated service of
process on Defendant Sylvania Township Police or Office of Chief of Police, Danilynn Miller or
Defendant Jessica Parker as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)” and ordered
Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the action should not be dismissed and why an
extension of time to effect service should be allowed. (ECF No. 22.) To date, Plaintiff has not
responded to the Court’s August 29, 2024 Order.
Under the circumstances presented in the instant case, the Undersigned recommends
dismissal of Plaintiff’s action with prejudice against Defendant Sylvania Township Police or
Office of Chief of Police, Danilynn Miller or Defendant Jessica Parker pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure Rule 41(b). The Court’s inherent authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action
because of their failure to prosecute is expressly recognized in Rule 41(b), which authorizes
involuntary dismissal for failure to prosecute or to comply with rules of procedure or court

orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (noting that
“a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute” as recognized in Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–32 (1962)). “This
measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect management of its docket and
avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts [and] opposing parties.” Knoll v.
American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (internal
quotations omitted).
On February 27, 2024, the Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the
Court’s Order and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m) would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. (ECF
No. 22.) See Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that
“[p]rior notice, or lack thereof, is [] a key consideration” in whether dismissal under Rule 41(b)
is appropriate); see also Steward v. City of Jackson, 8 F. App’x 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001). While
the Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status, dismissal is nevertheless appropriate given
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the readily comprehended deadlines. See Steward, 8 F. App’x
at 296-297 (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Sylvania Township Police or Office of Chief of Police, Danilynn Miller or Defendant
Jessica Parker WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b).
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and
Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties
objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and
Recommendation, and the part in question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. §

2

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days
after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review of by the District Judge
and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v.
Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report,
which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for
appeal . . . .” (citation omitted)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 25, 2024

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3