From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freeman v. Kentucky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 2, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-407 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 1:18-cv-407

08-02-2018

KIMBERLY FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants.


Barrett, J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 13, 2018, the Court issued a Deficiency Order in this matter based upon Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee and/or request leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Doc. 2). As such, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee and/or file a completed application for IFP within 30 days of the date of the deficiency order. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an application to proceed IFP, paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the Court's Deficiency Order.

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

Freeman v. Kentucky

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Aug 2, 2018
Case No. 1:18-cv-407 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2018)
Case details for

Freeman v. Kentucky

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.…

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

Date published: Aug 2, 2018

Citations

Case No. 1:18-cv-407 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2018)