Sowell v. The State of Ohio

S.D. Ohio

Sowell v. The State of Ohio

DecidedMay 8, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00297

StatusUnknown

This text of Sowell v. The State of Ohio (Sowell v. The State of Ohio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sowell v. The State of Ohio, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SALVATORE J. SOWELL, : Case No. 2:25-cv-297 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Algenon L. Marbley vs. : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman : STATE OF OHIO, et al., : : Defendants. : : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a Deficiency Order requiring plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or to submit an application and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was advised that “[i]f plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court shall dismiss this case for want of prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 17). To date, more than thirty (30) days after the April 2, 2025 Deficiency Order, plaintiff has failed to respond to or otherwise comply with the Order. District courts have the inherent 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 of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 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).

s/Stephanie K. Bowman Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

SALVATORE J. SOWELL, : Case No. 2:25-cv-297 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Algenon L. Marbley vs. : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman : STATE OF OHIO, et al., : : Defendants. : : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a Deficiency Order requiring plaintiff to pay the full filing fee or to submit an application and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff was advised that “[i]f plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Court shall dismiss this case for want of prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 17). To date, more than thirty (30) days after the April 2, 2025 Deficiency Order, plaintiff has failed to respond to or otherwise comply with the Order. District courts have the inherent 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 of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631 (1962). See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). Failure of a party to respond to an order of the court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution. NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 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).

s/Stephanie K. Bowman Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sowell v. The State of Ohio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sowell-v-the-state-of-ohio-ohsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack