# Hunter v. Hamilton County Board Of Commissioners > District Court, S.D. Ohio · February 10, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797114 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio - **Decided:** February 10, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797114 ## Opinion text \UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE M. HUNTER, Case No. 1:21-cv-544 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF REPORT AND COMMISIONERS, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants. On December 3, 2024, defendants John and Jane Doe employees of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint against them based on plaintiff’s failure to identify and serve them within the Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) time frame and plaintiff’s failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (Doc. 52). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss, so on January 22, 2025, the Court issued an Order to plaintiff to show cause within 14 days of the Order why her case should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for want of prosecution. (Doc. 53). The Court stated it would recommend dismissal of this action to the District Judge if plaintiff did not respond within such time. To date, more than 14 days since the Order to show cause, plaintiff has not filed a response. “Federal courts possess certain ‘inherent powers . . . to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 52) or Order to show cause (Doc. 53) warrants exercise of the Court’s inherent power and dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute this matter. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31; Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109-10 (6th Cir. 1991). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Date; 2/10/2024 Hern K Xethov- Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge \UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION TRACIE M. HUNTER, Case No. 1:21-cv-544 Plaintiff, Hopkins, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs. HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISIONERS, 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). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10797114. Public record. Not legal advice.