From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alexander v. Maynard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 3, 2018
Case No. 1:16-cv-1139 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:16-cv-1139

08-03-2018

JOHN ALEXANDER, III, Plaintiff, v. C/O MAYNARD, et al., Defendants.


Dlott, J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 4, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting, in part, Plaintiff's motion to stay or to extend time to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 21). Plaintiff was granted an extension of time through and including August 1, 2018 to file his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The remainder of Plaintiff's motion requesting a stay of proceedings was denied. Id. The Order further stated that no additional extensions of time will be granted by the Court. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' motion for summary judgment by the deadline set by the Court.

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, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and for failure to obey a Court Order; and that this case be CLOSED.

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).


Summaries of

Alexander v. Maynard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 3, 2018
Case No. 1:16-cv-1139 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Alexander v. Maynard

Case Details

Full title:JOHN ALEXANDER, III, Plaintiff, v. C/O MAYNARD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 3, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:16-cv-1139 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2018)