UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY WILLIAMSON, 

 Case No. 1:18-cv-569 

 Plaintiff, 

Black, J. 

Bowman, M.J. 

v. 

 

HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action on August 10, 2018. On September 

7, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order directing the United States Marshals Service 

to serve the Complaint upon Defendant Hamilton County Sheriff (doc. 4). Plaintiff was 

further ordered to promptly inform the Court of any changes to his address which may 

occur during the pendency of this lawsuit. On November 30, 2018, the United States 

Postal Service returned mail addressed to Plaintiff to the Clerk of Court as undeliverable 

(doc. 10). The item of mail contained an endorsement indicating that the Plaintiff was no 

longer incarcerated at the Hamilton County Justice Center. Plaintiff has subsequently 

made no attempts at advising the Court of his new mailing address, as he was previously 

ordered to do. 

Thereafter, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to show cause, why his Complaint should 

not be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to abide by an Order of the Court. 

(Doc. 15). The Court’s show cause Order was returned as undeliverable. (See Docs. 16, 

17). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00569-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/18/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 64
It is incumbent upon any litigant, including a pro se prisoner litigant, to keep the 

Court apprised of his current address. While some latitude may be extended to pro 

se litigants “when dealing with sophisticated legal issues ... there is no cause for 

extending this margin to straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can 

comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss any case 

for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the rules or order of the court....” 

Unless the court orders otherwise, a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 

41(b) is an adjudication on the merits that is to be given preclusive effect, barring 

subsequent actions based on the same allegations. See Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 

F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2009). Without such basic information as a current address from a 

would-be plaintiff, a court has no recourse but to dismiss a complaint for failure to 

prosecute. See, e.g., Whittaker v. Hilltop Records, 2009 WL 2734052 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 

2009) (dismissal of pro se plaintiff); Buck v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Farmers Home 

Admin., 960 F.2d 603, 608–609 (6th Cir. 1992) (dismissal upheld in part due to counsel’s 

failure to advise court of change of address). 

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT this case be dismissed based upon 

Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address, and corresponding 

failure to prosecute. 

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:18-cv-00569-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/18/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 65
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

TIMOTHY WILLIAMSON, 

 Case No. 1:18-cv-569 

 Plaintiff, 

Black, J. 

Bowman, M.J. 

v. 

 

HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NOTICE

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

objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after 

being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the 

portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within 

FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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-00569-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/18/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 66