Jones v. Chappel et al

Filing 18

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 11/22/2024. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JUSTIN EZRA JONES
v.
ROBIN CHAPPELL et al.
TO:

)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:24-cv-00002
Campbell/Holmes

Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., Chief United States District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered June 20, 2024 (Docket Entry No. 14), the Court referred this prisoner
civil rights action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
Justin Ezra Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se and in forma pauperis lawsuit on January 2,
2024, while an inmate within the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”). He seeks relief
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on allegations that his constitutional rights were violated at the
Dickson County Jail (“Jail”) prior to his incarceration within TDOC. Upon initial review of the
lawsuit, the Court found that Plaintiff stated an arguable legal claim against two nurses at the Jail
and directed him to return completed service packets for the defendant so that process could issue.
See Docket Entry No. 14 at 3. Plaintiff was given 30 days from entry of the Court’s Order to return
the completed service packets. Id.
After several months passed without completed service packets being returned and without
any other contact from Plaintiff, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed. See Order entered September 25, 2024 (Docket Entry No. 15). Plaintiff did not
respond. However, TDOC filed a letter with the Court stating that Plaintiff had been paroled on

September 6, 2024, see Docket Entry No. 16, so the Court issued a second show cause order to
Plaintiff at the non-institutional address for him provided by TDOC and gave him a deadline of
November 15, 2024, to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. (Docket Entry No.
17.) Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order.
Rule 4(m) requires that Defendants be served with process within 90 days of the date this
action was filed and provides that, in the absence of a showing of good cause by Plaintiff for why
service has not been timely made, the Court "must dismiss" the action without prejudice. Because
Defendants have not been served with process within the time set out in Rule 4(m), this action is
properly dismissed.
It is also well-settled that federal trial courts have the inherent power to manage their own
dockets, Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1961), and Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure permits the Court to dismiss an action upon a showing of a clear record of delay,
contumacious conduct, or failure to prosecute by the plaintiff. See Carter v. City of Memphis,
Tennessee, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff’s failure to return completed service
packets, failure to provide a change of address notice, and failure to stay engaged in his lawsuit
upon his release from TDOC indicate that he has lost interest in the lawsuit.
The case cannot proceed with an absent plaintiff. Although the Court recognizes that
Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant affords him with some measure of leeway, proceeding pro se
does not relieve a litigant from the basic obligations required of all parties, such as keeping the
Court informed of a good mailing address and remaining involved in the case.

2

RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with Rules 4(m) and 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the
specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District
Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and
Local Rule 72.02(b).

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

3