UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JORDAN ANTONIO JARRELL, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Civil Action 2:18-cv-691 

 Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 

JANE/JOHN DOE, 

 Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 12, 2018, but failed to either pay the requisite $400 

filing fee or file an application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 1.) 

On July 16, 2018, the Court issued a Deficiency Order directing Plaintiff to pay the fee or submit 

an appropriate application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. (ECF No. 2.) On 

July 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed his self-styled Writ of Error, which does not address the Court’s 

Order or remedy Plaintiff’s deficiency. Plaintiff has not otherwise responded to the Court’s 

Deficiency Order. 

 This matter is, therefore, before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with its Deficiency Order and failure to prosecute. It is RECOMMENDED that this 

action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 The Court’s inherent authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action or particular claims within 

an action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute is expressly recognized in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which provides in pertinent part: “If the plaintiff fails to 

prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the 
 2

action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 

subdivision (b) . . . operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. 

Walbash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629B31 (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. 1999). 

“Rule 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal.” 

Steward v. City of Jackson, Tenn., 8 F. App'x 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Link, 370 U.S. 626 

at 630). 

 Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Order, it is RECOMMENDED

that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice. 

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that 

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in 

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and 

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex 

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district 
 3

court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that 

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, 

appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 

981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to 

specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation 

omitted)). 

Date: August 17, 2018 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE