Foster v. Wiseman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI) LARRY FOSTER, : Case No. 1:25-cv-366 : Plaintiff, : District Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : JUDGE MARY WISEMAN, : : Defendant. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with a prisoner civil rights complaint filed in this Court. (Doc. 1). Because the motion was incomplete, the Court issued a Deficiency Order on June 27, 2025, in which it ordered Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or to submit to the Court a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis motion within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 4).

The Deficiency Order was returned to the Court as “undeliverable” (see Doc. 6).

Therefore, on July 17, 2025, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an Order that required Plaintiff to file a Notice of Mailing Address that lists the address at which he can receive regular U.S. mail. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file the Notice by August 15, 2025, and advised him that “[i]f he fails to do so, the undersigned Magistrate Judge will recommend that the Court dismiss this case (without prejudice to refiling) for failure to prosecute.” (Doc. 7 at PageID 17-18).

The August 15, 2025 deadline has elapsed and Plaintiff has failed to respond to or otherwise comply with the Court’s July 17, 2025 Order, which was also returned as undeliverable.

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).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED (without prejudice to refiling) for lack of prosecution.

Date: 8/22/25 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry 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 this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. 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. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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).