Bowden v. Xenia Police Department et al

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Objections to R&R due by 9/27/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/10/2012. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ZEBADIAH E. BOWDEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:12-cv-028
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vs:
XENIA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case is before the Court on Motion of Defendants City of Xenia, Matthew Dray, and
Terry Zoerb (the “Xenia Defendants”) to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution or to Compel
Discovery and enter a New Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 14).

The attached memorandum

explains that the Xenia Defendants’ discovery requests have gone unanswered and Plaintiff has
never filed the required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, despite a deadline for doing so of
March 30, 2012, set in the Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc. No. 8). The docket itself
discloses that Plaintiff has never disclosed any lay witnesses, despite a deadline of June 15, 2012.
Id.
Upon the filing of that Motion, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause not later than
August 31, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiff has

filed nothing in response. It is accordingly recommended that this case be dismissed without
prejudice for want of prosecution.
September 10, 2012.

s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this
Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e), this period is automatically
extended to seventeen days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service
listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(B), (C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See, United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).