Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-750
03-17-2014
STEPHEN JONES, Plaintiff, v. NICK BEACHLER, et al., Defendants.
Weber, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this pro se action against his former employer and supervisor asserting defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII). On January 7, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 11). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, plaintiff was to file his memorandum in opposition within twenty-one days. S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss within the prescribed time.
On February 27, 2014, this Court Ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing and within fourteen days, why defendants' pending motion to dismiss should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated in the motion. (Doc. 16). This Order was sent to plaintiff via certified mail on February 27, 2014. (Id.). To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order or to the motion to dismiss.
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 (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).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff's case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and for failure to obey an Order of the Court.
___________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
STEPHEN JONES, Plaintiff,
vs. NICK BEACHLER, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 1:13-cv-750
Weber, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with this Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to another party's objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985).
| SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION | COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY | |
| [X] Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. [X] Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. [X] Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. | A. Signature [X] Agent [] Addressee | |
| 1. Article Addressed to: | B. Received by (Printed Name) | C. Date of Delivery |
| D. Is delivery address different from item 1? [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No | ||
| 3. Service Type [X] Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. | ||
| 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes | ||
| 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) | 7002 3150 0000 8389 9956 | |
| PS Form 3811, February 2004 | Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 |