UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-247

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs Bowman, M.J.

OHIO DEPT OF REHAB REPORT AND

AND CORRECTION, et al., RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

On April 9, 2018, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this purported class action 

alleging deprivation of his civil rights by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

(See Doc. 1). On May 10, 2018, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, that plaintiff be 

ordered to pay the full $400 fee ($350 filing fee plus $50 administrative fee) required to 

commence this action within thirty (30) days, and that plaintiff be notified that his failure to pay 

the full $400 fee within thirty days would result in the dismissal of his action. (Doc. 2, at PageID 

77).1

On March 11, 2019, the District Court entered an Order adopting the undersigned’s 

Report and Recommendation and ordered plaintiff to pay the full $400 fee within thirty (30) days 

 1

The undersigned found that plaintiff is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding in forma pauperis

because three prior complaints filed by him while he has been a prisoner were dismissed with prejudice at the screening 

stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and his complaint failed to include allegations 

suggesting he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint. (See Doc. 2, at 

PageID 69 n.1, 72-77). The undersigned also found that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of other 

inmates and was not permitted, as a pro se litigant, to bring a class action. (Doc. 2, at PageID 70). Furthermore, the 

other individuals named as plaintiffs had not paid the filing fee, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, nor 

signed the complaint. (Doc. 2, at PageID 70). Additionally, the allegations in the complaint arose out of different 

transactions or occurrences and involved distinct questions of law and fact. (Doc. 2, at PageID 70-72).

Case: 1:18-cv-00247-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 210
2

of the date of the Order. (Doc. 12). To date, more than thirty days after the Court’s March 11, 

2019 Order, plaintiff has failed to pay the $400 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). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 

F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). 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). Accordingly, this case 

should be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 11, 2019 Order. In 

re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002). 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of 

prosecution. It is further RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s pending motion titled “U.S. 

Attorney General ADA Request by Plaintiff—Supplemental Complaint Request” (Doc. 11) be 

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00247-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 211
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER FOSTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-247

Plaintiff,

Black, J.

vs Bowman, M.J.

OHIO DEPT OF REHAB

AND CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

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).

Case: 1:18-cv-00247-TSB-SKB Doc #: 13 Filed: 04/16/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 212