McDougleh

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

SAPPHIRE MCDOUGLEH,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:25-cv-0028

vs. Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

OHIO REFORMATORY

FOR WOMEN, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Sapphire McDougleh, an Ohio inmate proceeding here without counsel, filed

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 19, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is

currently before the Undersigned following Plaintiff’s failure to respond to a Show Cause Order

dated January 9, 2026. (ECF No. 29.) For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that

this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

I.

The following background is in order. In a Report and Recommendation issued on June

25, 2025, the Undersigned recommended that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed with her Eighth

Amendment medical care claim against defendants LP Smith, Nurse Brown, and Nurse Michel

and her ADA claim against defendant ORW. (ECF No. 17.) The Undersigned directed Plaintiff

to submit, within thirty days, a completed summons and United States Marshal form for each of

these defendants. (Id.) On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff submitted summons forms. (ECF No. 21.)

The assigned District Judge adopted that Report and Recommendation in full by Order dated

July 15, 2025. (ECF No. 22.) By Order dated August 1, 2025, the Undersigned directed

Plaintiff to submit, within thirty days, a completed U.S. Marshal form and a service copy of the

Complaint for each Defendant. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff submitted U.S. Marshal forms for all

but one defendant on August 22, 2025. (ECF No. 24.) Accordingly, by Order dated August 26,

2025, the Undersigned directed Plaintiff to submit the remaining summons form and the four

required service copies of the Complaint. (ECF No. 25.) The Undersigned also noted, that, to

the extent Plaintiff’s filing indicated an intention to raise new claims or further requests for

relief, such issues are more properly brought before the Court by way of an amended complaint.

On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff submitted the final summons form and filed a motion to

amend. (ECF Nos. 26, 27)

By Order dated November 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend and

ordered as followed:

In order for this case to move forward without continued delay, the Court

DIRECTS the following: Rather than submit copies of an Amended Complaint,

consistent with the Court’s previous Orders, Plaintiff must submit four service

copies of her previously screened Complaint (ECF No. 1), one for each remaining

defendant, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

Upon receipt of the required service copies, the Court will direct service by the

United States Marshal of the summons, Complaint, and a copy of this Order

confirming Plaintiff’s amended request for relief. Plaintiff’s continued failure to

submit service copies of the Complaint as ordered may result in a recommendation

of dismissal.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not sign the submitted USMS forms.

Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to Plaintiff, for her signature, copies

of the four USMS forms as previously submitted. (See ECF Nos. 24, 26.) Plaintiff

is DIRECTED to sign these copies and return them with the service copies of her

Complaint as ordered above.

(ECF No. 28.)

When Plaintiff’s failure to provide service copies of the Complaint or signed copies

of the USMS forms as ordered continued, the Undersigned issued a Show Cause Order on

January 9, 2026. (ECF No. 29.) In that Order, the Undersigned observed:

This case now has been pending in this Court for a year. As noted above, Plaintiff

was authorized to proceed with her Eighth Amendment medical care claim against

Defendants Smith, Brown, and Michel, her ADA claim against ORW, and her state

law claims against these Defendants by Order dated July 15, 2025. (ECF No. 22.)

In the intervening six months, Plaintiff has failed to submit the required service

documents necessary to permit service by the United States Marshal despite

repeated directives from the Court. (ECF Nos. 23, 25, 28.)

(ECF No. 29.) The Undersigned allowed Plaintiff fourteen days to respond and specifically

cautioned Plaintiff that her failure to comply with the Order would result in the recommendation

that this action be dismissed. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Show Cause Order.

II.

Under these documented circumstances, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that this

action be DISMISSSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule

41(b). See Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs., 138 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that

“[p]rior notice, or lack thereof, is [] a key consideration” in whether dismissal under Rule 41(b)

is appropriate); see also Steward v. City of Jackson, 8 F. App’x 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001). The

Court’s inherent authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of their failure to prosecute is

expressly recognized in Rule 41(b), which authorizes involuntary dismissal for failure to

prosecute or to comply with rules of procedure or court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (noting that “a federal district court has the

inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute” as recognized in Link v.

Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–32 (1962)). “This measure is available to the district court as

a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-

supported courts [and] opposing parties.” Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363

(6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted). While the Court is mindful of

Plaintiff’s pro se status, dismissal is nevertheless appropriate given Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with the readily comprehended deadlines. See Steward, 8 F. App’x at 296-297 (citing Jourdan v.

Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)).

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and

Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in

question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a forfeiture of the right to de novo review of by the District Judge

and forfeiture of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Even when timely

objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is forfeited. Robert

v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s

report, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for

appeal . . . .” (citation omitted)).

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers______

DATED: February 4, 2026 ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE