Johnson v. Manns

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI ALFRED A. JOHNSON SR., : Case No. 1:24-cv-174 : Plaintiff, : Judge Michael R. Barrett : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : OFC. T. MANNS, et. al., : : Defendants. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This civil rights case was opened on the Court’s docket on March 25, 2024. On June 10, 2024, after concluding that Plaintiff was subject to the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), this Court denied Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the full filing fee within thirty days. (ECF No. 13, PageID 94). The filing fee was due by July 10, 2024. To date, however, it has not been paid.

“District courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss civil actions for want of prosecution [in order to] to manage their own affairs [and] achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Failure to comply with a court order warrants invocation of this inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Here, the Court specifically warned Plaintiff “that if he fails to timely pay the full filing fee as directed, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 13, PageID 94). Accordingly, because the fee was not timely paid, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS the case.

The undersigned also RECOMMENDS that the Court CERTIFY that an appeal of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and accordingly DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff may file Objections to these recommendations as outlined below. He is reminded that he must keep this Court informed of his current address, and promptly file a Notice of New Address if he is released or transferred.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

July 29, 2024 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry CAROLINE H. GENTRY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Notice Regarding Objections to this Report and Recommendations If any party objects to this Report and Recommendations (“R&R”), the party may serve and file specific, written objections to it within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. The Court may extend the fourteen-day objections period if a timely motion for an extension of time is filed.

A District Judge of this Court will make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which objection is made. Upon proper objection, a District Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the R&R will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the R&R de novo, and will also operate as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).