James Lampkin, Sr. v. Silver Line Building Products, LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

James Lampkin, Sr., Case No. 3:22-cv-1810 Plaintiff, v. ORDER

Silver Line Building Products, LLC, et al., Defendants.

On April 3, 2026, counsel for Defendants contacted my chambers via email to report that Plaintiff has failed to respond to defense counsel’s repeated attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding outstanding discovery and other matters in this case since at least February 26, 2026.

Defendants seek an order setting a conference to discuss Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his case.

Plaintiff was copied on Defendants’ email to my chambers but has not responded that communication.

Rule 41 permits a court to dismiss an action or a claim if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Before dismissing a case for want of prosecution, a court must consider its “need to manage its docket, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to a defendant because the plaintiff has failed to actively pursue its claims” while also keeping in mind “the policy which favors disposition of cases on their merits.” Little v. Yeutter, 984 F.2d 160, 162 (6th Cir. 1993).

This case has been pending for approximately three and a half years and has involved two settlement conference held nearly two years apart, as well as several extensions of the discovery deadline. Plaintiff’s failure to even acknowledge Defendants’ physical and electronic mailings forecasts additional delays and needlessly increases the cost of this litigation and its burden on judicial resources.

Therefore, I order Plaintiff James Lampkin Sr. to show cause, on or before April 27, 2026, why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution.

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge