Opinion
1:21-cv-711
08-04-2022
DANIEL BRONSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OHIO, Defendant.
Black, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, previously a prisoner at the London Correctional Institution, has filed a civil rights complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1). On November 23, 2021, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation to deny plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The Report and Recommendation was returned to the Court as undeliverable, indicating that plaintiff was released. (See Doc. 4)
Plaintiff subsequently provided the Court with an updated mailing address. (See Doc. 3). However, as noted below, mail sent to him at the updated address was also returned as undeliverable.
On July 5, 2022, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, denied plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordered plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was notified that the failure to pay the full filing fee within thirty days would result in the dismissal of this action. See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).
The July 5, 2022 Decision and Entry was returned to the Court marked “Return to Sender Attempted - Not Known Unable to Forward.” (See Doc. 6, 7). To date, more than thirty days after the July 5, 2022 Decision and Entry, plaintiff has failed to inform the Court of his current address or pay the full filing fee.
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 inform the Court of a change in address or to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court's inherent power in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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).