UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

PETER K. NEWMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00252

District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1

Plaintiff Peter K. Newman, a resident of Dayton, Ohio, brings this case pro se

naming as Defendants the University of Dayton, attorney Karen Dunlevey, and Jackson 

Lewis P.C. 

The Court previously ordered Plaintiff to show cause, not later than January 7, 

2019, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Order to Show 

Cause explained that Plaintiff had not returned to the Clerk of Court a summons and

other forms necessary to effect timely service, and more than 90 days had passed without 

proof of service being entered in the record. Plaintiff did not respond to this Order by 

January 7, 2019. The only response Plaintiff provided occurred during a phone call on 

January 22, 2019. He explained to Chambers staff that he had suffered from pneumonia 

and, as a result, could not file a response to the Order To Show Cause. He also informed 

 1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
2

Chambers staff that he intended to file a Motion for Extension of Time and proof of 

service. Yet, as of the date and time of this Report, Plaintiff has not filed a Motion for 

Extension or proof of service.

Other than filing his Complaint and Motions for Recusal, To Consolidate His Four 

Cases, and To Transfer His Consolidated Cases to Magistrate Judge Newman (doc. #4)—

which the Court denied in October 2018 (doc. #5)—Plaintiff has not prosecuted this case. 

He has not filed a summons returned as executed and the time is well past for him to do 

so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). He has not filed any document in response to the Court’s 

Order to Show Cause by January 7, 2019, he has not filed a document in the record of the 

case explaining why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court, 

moreover, has provided Plaintiff with more than three weeks since his response to the 

Order to Show Cause was due to comply with its mandate.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in a clear pattern of delay by not

effecting service of summons, by not properly responding to the Order to Show Cause, 

and by not otherwise participating in this case after filing his Motions in October 2018. 

One effect of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show cause is that 

the record is void of an explanation by Plaintiff for his failure to effect service. Absent 

such an explanation, and in light of the above circumstances, Plaintiff’s clear pattern of 

delay warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to 

prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); see also Jourdan 

v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991); Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254, 1256 (6th 

Cir. 1988).
3

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed; and

2. The case be terminated on the Court’s docket.

January 29, 2019 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge
4

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after 

being served with this Report and Recommendations. 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 of 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 FOURTEEN 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, 

949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).