United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
JAMES M. CARR, SR., Plaintiff,
JEFF NOBLE, et al., Defendants.
Algenon L. Marbley Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
James M. Carr, Sr., an Ohio inmate who is proceeding without
the assistance of counsel, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants,
employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction (“ODRC”) and London Correctional
Institution (“LoCI”), alleging that Defendants
impeded his ability to exercise his religion in violation of
the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). This
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute
(ECF No. 142). For the reasons that follow, it is
RECOMMENDED that Defendants' Motion be
GRANTED and that Plaintiff's action be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
April 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint,
naming eleven Defendants. (ECF No. 124.) On June 24, 2016,
Plaintiff moved to stay this case because of his possible
release from LoCI. (ECF No. 135.) The Court granted
Plaintiff's request to stay the cause until December 28,
2016, and directed him to file a written status report by
January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 137.)
Plaintiff reported that he had been released from LoCI and
requested an additional ninety days to hire competent legal
counsel to assist him in this litigation. (ECF Nos. 138,
140.) The Court granted Plaintiff's request and stayed
the case for an additional ninety days and directed him to
file a written status report on or before April 24, 2017.
(ECF No. 139.) Despite the stay and additional time,
Plaintiff did not file a written status report.
9, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute based on Plaintiff's failure to file a status
report in accordance with the Court's Order. (ECF No.
142.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Motion to
November 27, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a
written status report on or before December 8, 2017. (ECF No.
143.) The Court specifically cautioned Plaintiff that the
Court would likely dismiss the case for failure to prosecute
if he failed to file a written status report. (Id.)
Plaintiff has not filed the required status report.
the circumstances presented in the instant case, the
Undersigned recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
be granted and that this action be dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court's inherent
authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of his
or her failure to prosecute is expressly recognized in Rule
41(b), which authorizes involuntary dismissal for failure to
prosecute or to comply with rules of procedure or court
orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Chambers v.
Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (noting that
“a federal district court has the inherent power to
dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to
prosecute” as recognized in Link v. Walbash R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-32 (1962)). “This measure
is available to the district court as a tool to effect
management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens
on the tax-supported courts and opposing parties.”
Knoll v. AT & T, 176 F.3d 359, 63 (6th Cir.
Sixth Circuit directs the district courts to consider the
following four factors in deciding whether to dismiss an
action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b):
(1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness,
bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced
by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could
lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions
were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep't, 529
F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Knoll, 176
F.3d at 363). “‘Although typically none of the
factors is outcome dispositive, . . . a case is properly
dismissed by the district court where there is a clear record
of delay or ...