Tyana Chandler v. Princeton City School District, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TYANA CHANDLER, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-231 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J.

Bowman, M.J vs. PRINCETON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On December 9, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s motions to dismiss and motion to remand, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by December 29, 2025, why the motions should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated in the motion. (Doc. 26). The Order also put Plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with this Order will result in a Report and Recommendation to the District Judge that Defendant’s motions be granted and Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the pending motions, nor has she responded to the pending Show Cause Order.

Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this matter and to obey an Order of the Court warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109–10 (6th Cir. 1991). District courts have the 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– 31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). See also Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 109. Though plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as stated by the Supreme Court, “we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution; all pending motions (Docs. 6, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) be DENIED as MOOT and this matter be CLOSED.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman Stephanie K. Bowman United States Chief Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TYANA CHANDLER, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-231 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J.

Bowman, M.J vs. PRINCETON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

NOTICE 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).