UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JACOB REIGELSPERGER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:25-cv-148

vs.

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 38); (2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THIS CASE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION; (3) CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND FINDING THAT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SHOULD BE DENIED ON APPEAL; (4) TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE (Doc. No. 26); AND (5) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET _______________________________________________________________________________________

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry (Doc. No. 38), to whom this case was referred pursuant to

(b). The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Upon careful review of the foregoing, and construing pro se Plaintiffs’ allegations in their favor1, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 38) in its entirety; (2) DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); (3) CERTIFIES, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and finds that Plaintiffs should be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis; (4) TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion for sanctions

1 The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. See Doc. Nos. 35, 36. Plaintiffs have not retained new counsel. See Doc. No. 38 at PageID 369-70. As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiffs’ documents and allegations are liberally construed in their favor. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (per curiam). against Plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence (Doc. No. 26); and (5) TERMINATES this case on the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 19, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge