Wilmot v. Butler County Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAYSON D. WILMOT, Case No. 1:20-cv-27 Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Litkovitz, M.J. vs. BUTLER COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., REPORT & Defendant. RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff a former inmate at the Butler County Jail initiated this action on January 9, 2020 against Butler County Jail defendants alleging violation of prisoner civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On February 24, 2020, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and was ordered to show cause, in writing, why this Court should not dismiss this case for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 6). On February 18, 2020, and on March 10, 2020, official case- related documents mailed by the Court to plaintiff's address listed on the Court’s docket have been returned by the U.S. Postal Service with the notation “Undeliverable — Return to sender.” (Docs. 5&7). Plaintiff was advised that his failure to comply with the terms of the show cause order would result in a recommendation to the District Court that this action be dismissed.

To date, more than fifteen days later, plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order and there is no indication from the docket that plaintiff is actively engaged in litigating this case.

A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of his cause of action, see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991), as well as a duty to supply the Court with notice of any and all changes in his address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 16375, at *1 (6" Cir. May 2, 1994) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Commercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 815 (9" Cir. 1985)).

District courts have the 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.” Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991).

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of prosecution and for failure to obey a Court order.

2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

J 2 - fz 2/11 [21 [XO Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate JudGe\ United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAYSON D. WILMOT, Case No. 1:20-cv-27 Plaintiffs, Barrett, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

VS. BUTLER COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.

NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period 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 of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the 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 14 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 (6th Cir. 1981).