Niyana Madaris v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Niyana Madaris, : Case No. 1:25-cv-519 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : Experian Information : Order Adopting Report and Solutions, Inc., : Recommendation and : Dismissing Case with Defendant. Prejudice The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this pro se case on December 3, 2025 recommending that Plaintiff Niyana Madaris’s action be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Doc. 14.) As the Magistrate Judge set forth in her Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. On October 22, 2025, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order, which was mailed to the address provided by Plaintiff, but was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff failed to provide an updated address or otherwise contact the Court. As such, on November 6, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, and within fifteen (15) days, why the Court should not dismiss her claims for want of prosecution. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff did not file anything in response. As Plaintiff failed to provide an updated address, respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order, or otherwise contact the Court to resolve this matter, the Magistrate Judge recommended on December 3, 2025 that Plaintiff's action be dismissed for want of prosecution. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s December 3, 2025 Report and Recommendation.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1) authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have been referred to them. Parties then have fourteen days to file and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party files objections to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district judge must review the objections under the de novo standard. Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition: receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantially similar).

The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution to be well-taken, as Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action or respond in any way to Magistrate Judge’s Show Cause Order or by filing objections to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT: Susan J. Dlott | " United States District Judge