Clay v. Adecco USA

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS CASE BE: (1) DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; AND (2) TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET re 2 Complaint filed by Kevin Clay Objections to R&R due by 6/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 5/23/2017. (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
KEVIN CLAY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-135

vs.
ADECCO USA,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT THIS CASE BE: (1) DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; AND (2) TERMINATED ON THE COURT’S DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
This pro se civil case is before the Court following issuance of an Order directing
Plaintiff to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On
May 8, 2017, pro se Plaintiff failed to participate in a duly scheduled discovery status conference
by telephone. As a result of pro se Plaintiff’s failure to participate, the Court issued the
aforementioned Order to Show Cause and notified Plaintiff that his failure to respond to the
Order may result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Pro se Plaintiff did not
respond to the Order to Show Cause and the time for doing so has expired.
In light of pro se Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this litigation as set forth above, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be: (1) dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to prosecute; and (2) this case be TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.

Date:

May 23, 2017

1

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.

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 Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system.
If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an
extension of the deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may
grant upon a showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation
objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is 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. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).