UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

GARY LEE PULLEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-386

Plaintiff, Cole, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

DIRECTOR GARY C. MOHR, et al., REPORT AND

Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Gary Lee Pullen, proceeding pro se, initiated this prisoner civil rights action in 

June 2018. (See Doc. 1). In October 2019, defendants Bear, Claggs, Conley, Crabtree, Dillow, 

Joiner, Ross, Sears, Smith, Smoot, Tipton, and Warren filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(Doc. 31). After this motion was filed, the Court sent plaintiff notice that a failure to respond 

could result in dismissal of his action for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 33). Despite this notice, 

plaintiff did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment.

On April 21, 2020, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause within twenty (20) days why 

this Court should not dismiss his case against defendants Bear, Claggs, Conley, Crabtree, Dillow, 

Joiner, Ross, Sears, Smith, Smoot, Tipton, and Warren for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 35). The 

Court also ordered plaintiff to show cause within twenty (20) days why his complaint should not 

be dismissed for lack of service upon defendants Correctional Officer Holbrook and Doctor 

Rogers. (Id.). To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the Show Cause Orders or to the 

pending motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this matter and to obey an Order of the Court warrants 

dismissal of this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-10 

(6th Cir. 1991). District courts have the 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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00386-DRC-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 617
2 

of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). See also Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 

109. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Supreme Court has stated that “we have never 

suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse 

mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 

(1993). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED in its 

entirety for want of prosecution, for lack of service, and for failure to obey an Order of the Court. 

Date: ____________________ 

Karen L. Litkovitz 

United States Magistrate Judge 

May 18, 2020

Case: 1:18-cv-00386-DRC-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 618
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

GARY LEE PULLEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-386

Plaintiff, Cole, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

DIRECTOR GARY C. MOHR, 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-00386-DRC-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 05/18/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 619