Reed v. Parsons

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON

TONY REED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 6:23-cv-00127-REW-CJS ) v. ) ) DR. PARSONS, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) )

*** *** *** *** Federal inmate Tony Reed initiated a pro se civil rights action alleging that prison medical professionals are denying him certain mental health-related prescription medications and individual mental health counseling. See DE 1 (Petition); DE 7 (Complaint). On April 18, 2025, Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. See DE 57 (Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings). After the deadline for filing a response expired with no submission from Reed, Magistrate Judge Candance J. Smith, on referral, reviewed the record and concluded that the matter should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for Plaintiff Reed’s failure to prosecute his claims. See DE 65 (Report and Recommendation). In turn, Judge Smith recommended that the Court deny all pending motions in the case as moot. See id. at 8-9. Judge Smith informed the parties of their right to object to the Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) within fourteen days. See id. at 9. The prescribed fourteen-day objection period has passed, and no party has objected to the Recommended Disposition. The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate [judge]’s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal.’”) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996) (quote brackets

simplified)); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2)–(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made”). Upon review of Judge Smith’s recommendation, the Court agrees with her analysis. Judge Smith, employing the proper Rule 41(b) analysis under Rogers v. City of Warren1, concluded that dismissal of Reed’s claim without prejudice was warranted. See DE 65 at 8. Specifically, Judge Smith noted that “the record does not reveal any action by Reed since before Salley filed his Motion

to Intervene in March 2025.” See id. at 6 (emphasis added).2 Given Reed’s failure to respond to Defendants’ motion—even after warning by the Court that any further failures to respond would result in a recommendation of dismissal—Judge Smith determined that Reed has abandoned his case. See id. at 6-7. The Court agrees with Judge Smith’s comprehensive analysis. This matter warrants dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record,

ORDERS as follows:

1 302 F. App’x 371, 376 (6th Cir. 2008). 2 On March 13, 2025, Daniel Eric Salley, pro se, filed a motion to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) claiming his right existed based upon his having helped Reed with this litigation. See DE 54 (Motion to Intervene). Salley, however, repeatedly failed to provide proof to the Court that he had served Reed with his filing. See DE 56 (Amended Certificate of Service); DE 59 (Status Report). Nevertheless, Salley continued to file motions in this action. Notably, in one such motion, Salley conceded that all his attempts to serve his Motion to Intervene upon Reed had been unsuccessful. See DE 61 (Motion to Consider Salley’s Motion to Intervene) at 1-2. 1. The Court ADOPTS DE 65. 2. The Court DENIES DE 54, DE 57, DE 61, DE 63, and DE 66° as moot. 3. The Court DISMISSES DE 7 and DE 11 without prejudice and STRIKES the matter from its active docket. This the 1st day of October, 2025.

J Kaw Signed By: a as | i i Robert E. Wier “,-¥ y/ “ae United States District Judge

3 Salley moves to join this matter pursuant to Rule 20(a)(1). While this motion is now moot given the Court’s dismissal of the underlying matter, Salley may, if he has an actionable claim, pursue it by initiating his own case.