Heru v. State of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SAKHU MAA TEM HERU, Case No. 2:22-cv-454 Plaintiff, Graham, J. vs Litkovitz, M.J.

STATE OF OHIO, REPORT AND Defendant. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the London Correctional Institution has filed a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On February 10, 2022, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order, requiring plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. (Id. at PageID 52).

To date, more than thirty days after the Court’s February 10, 2022 Order, plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order.1 “District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte 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, 630–631 (1962). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 10, 2022 Order.

1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 14, 2022 which is not responsive to the Deficiency Order. (See Doc. 3).

In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.

IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.

Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SAKHU MAA TEM HERU, Case No. 2:22-cv-454 Plaintiff, Graham, J. vs Litkovitz, M.J.

STATE OF OHIO, Defendant.

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).