Opinion
Case No. 1:15-cv-482
10-29-2015
M. JASON RUSSELL, SR., Plaintiff, v. DONALD MORGAN, et al., Defendants.
Black, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The instant action commenced on July 20, 2015 when the pro se plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, filed an indecipherable pleading with the Court without paying a filing fee or submitting a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. 1). On August 8, 2015, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order ordering the plaintiff to file an amended civil complaint and to either "pay $400 ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the preceding six-month period" within thirty days. (See Doc. 2) (emphasis added). Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted his prison trust fund account statement and additional pleadings, but failed to submit a written complaint setting forth his civil claims or an in forma pauperis application completed and signed by him. (See Docs. 5-6). Therefore, the undersigned issued a second Deficiency Order on September 25, 2015, essentially granting the plaintiff an additional thirty days in which to file a complaint and to "either pay $400 ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) or submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application." (See Doc. 7). Plaintiff has yet to respond to this Court's latest Deficiency Order, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
District courts have the inherent 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, 630-631 (1962). Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court's inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge
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). cbc