Fisk v. Dayton Police Department et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Compel - Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSEon or before June 2, 2017why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 5/19/17. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ROBERT FISK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAYTON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

: Case No. 3:16-cv-00118
:
: District Judge Thomas M. Rose
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER
On April 27, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #14), and
the Court ordered Plaintiff to either provide the requested discovery to Defendants or show
cause why their Motion to Compel should not be granted by May 4, 2017. On May 17,
2018, the United States Postal Service returned as undeliverable a copy of the Order that
had been sent to Plaintiff’s address of record. (Doc. #18). Additionally, Defendants filed
a Notice of Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with the Court’s Show Cause Order, requesting
that the Court order Plaintiff to produce the requested discovery. (Doc. #17).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. #14) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall provide answers to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and First
Requests for Production of Documents on or before June 2, 2017. In addition, Plaintiff
shall SHOW CAUSE—on or before June 2, 2017—why this case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link v. Wabash R.R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
Plaintiff is placed on notice that failure to comply with this Order could result in the
imposition of additional sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal of the lawsuit
with prejudice to refiling. “If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules
or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). District courts, moreover, have the inherent power to 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, 630-31 (1962).

May 19, 2017

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

2