James H. Lang v. Brown County Detention Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

James H. Lang, : : Case No. 1:25-cv-511 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Adopting Report and Brown County Detention Center, : Recommendation, Dismissing Case, and : Denying Motions as Moot Defendant. :

This matter is before the Court on the June 4, 2026 Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. recommending dismissal of this action. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff James H. Lang filed a pro se Complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for alleged violations of his First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Brown County Detention Center, the jail where he was held as a pretrial detainee. The Court issued an Order on April 15, 2026, dismissing the Complaint because the Brown County Detention Center is not a legal entity capable of being sued and Lang’s allegations were insufficient to state a claim for relief against Brown County itself. (Doc. 16 PageID 59–60.) But the Court also granted Lang permission to file an amended complaint not exceeding twenty (20) pages in length on or before May 11, 2026 if he wanted to remedy the deficiencies in the Complaint. (Id. at PageID 60.) Lang did not file an amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Silvain issued the June 4, 2026 Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the case “for Plaintiff’s failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Court following the April 15, 2026 dismissal of his initial Complaint.” (Doc. 17 PageID 61–62.) “The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631 (1962); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (upholding dismissal of a pro se plaintiff who “failed to adhere to readily comprehended court

deadlines of which he was well-aware”). It is currently well past the May 11, 2026 deadline, and Lang has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time do so. Lang’s failure to file an amended complaint justifies the dismissal of this action. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Lang’s pending Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 14), Motions for a Hearing (Doc. 15, 18), and Motion to Compel (Doc. 19) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge