Folck v. Ford Motor Company
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) The case be dismissed without prejudice to renewal; and (2) The case be terminated on the Court's docket. Objections to R&R due by 2/24/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 2/10/17. (mcm)(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
NEAL C. FOLCK,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
: Case No. 3:16-cv-00461
: District Judge Walter H. Rice
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
Defendant removed the present case from the Clark County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas. Before removal, Plaintiff Neal C. Folck had filed his pro se complaint on or about
October 4, 2016. At that time, he was a resident of Springfield, Ohio.
In the present case, it appears that Plaintiff participated in early January 2017 in a Rule
26(f) meeting with Defendant’s counsel. After the meeting, Plaintiff declined to consent to a
joint filing of the draft Rule 26(f) report without first contacting the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission. (Doc. #7). On January 11, 2017, Defendant filed the Rule 26(f) Report,
explaining these circumstances. Id. The Court thereafter entered a Preliminary Pretrial Order,
a copy of which the Clerk of Court mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record.
On January 23, 2017, the U.S. Postal Service returned to the Clerk the copy of the
Preliminary Pretrial Order because it was “not deliverable as addressed.” (Doc. #9). Checking
Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
the envelope reveals that the Clerk correctly addressed it to Plaintiff at his address of record.
Plaintiff has not updated his address of record.
On January 24 2017, the Court issued an Show Cause Order requiring Plaintiff to show
cause why his case should not be dismissed due to his lack of prosecution. The Clerk of Court
mailed Plaintiff a copy of the Show Cause Order but, on January 31, 2017, the Postal Service
returned the Show Cause Order to the Clerk of Court again marked Anot deliverable as
addressed.@ (Doc. #11). Checking the envelope reveals that the Clerk correctly addressed it
and properly mailed the Show Cause Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. Id.
District Courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of
prosecution to Amanage 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). Exercise of that
power is warranted in this case because Plaintiff has not kept the Court apprised of his current
address, has not responded to the Show Cause Order, and has not otherwise provided the Court
with a means of contacting him regarding matters in this case. Accordingly, dismissal of his
Complaint without prejudice is warranted for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
see also Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
The case be dismissed without prejudice to renewal; and
The case be terminated on the Court’s docket.
February 10, 2017
s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
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(d), this
period is extended to SEVENTEEN days if this Report is being served by one of the methods
of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify
the portions of the Report 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.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 94950 (6th Cir. 1981).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?