UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RYAN DILLON, Case No. 1:18-cv-279

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.

vs Bowman, M.J.

OHIO DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION REPORT AND 

CORRECTIONS, et al., RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action by filing a complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). However, plaintiff failed to pay the required filing fee to 

commence the action. Plaintiff also failed to submit service copies of the complaint, summons, 

and United States Marshal forms for each of the defendants named in this lawsuit.

On May 2, 2018, the undersigned issued a Deficiency Order requiring plaintiff to pay the 

full $400 filing fee or to submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and certified copy 

of plaintiff’s prison trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the preceding 

six-month period, and to submit service copies of the complaint and completed summons and 

United States Marshal forms for the named defendants. (Doc. 2). 

Plaintiff partially complied with the Deficiency Order by submitting a certified copy of 

his trust fund account statement. However, because plaintiff failed to provide an in forma 

pauperis application, service copies of the complaint, summons forms, or United States Marshal 

forms for each of the defendants named in the lawsuit, the Court issued a second Deficiency 

Order on June 11, 2018. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was ordered to pay the full $400 filing fee or to 

submit to the Court an in forma pauperis application and to submit a service copy of the 

complaint, summons form, and a United States Marshal forms for each of the named defendants 

within twenty-one days of the date of the Order. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was also warned that a 

Case: 1:18-cv-00279-SJD-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 14
2

failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of his case for want of prosecution. 

(Doc. 4).

To date, more than twenty-one days after the Court’s June 11, 2018 Deficiency Order, 

plaintiff has failed to comply with or respond to the Order. 

“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 June 11, 2018 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 SO RECOMMENDED.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00279-SJD-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RYAN DILLON, Case No. 1:18-cv-279

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.

vs Bowman, M.J.

OHIO DEPARTMENT REHABILITATION 

CORRECTIONS, 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-00279-SJD-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 08/03/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 16