Tidwell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS

CLEOTHER TIDWELL, : Case No. 2:25-cv-1520

:

Plaintiff, :

: District Judge Algenon L. Marbley

vs. :

Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

:

CHRISTINE BROWN, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Pinckneyville Correctional Center, in Pinckneyville, Illinois, has

filed a complaint titled “Petition to File Out of Jurisdiction Grievance.” (Doc. 1).

Observing that Plaintiff did not (1) pay the $405.00 filing fee or request leave to proceed

without prepayment of the filing fee, or (2) submit service copies of the complaint or other service

documents, the Court entered an Order on February 25, 2026, directing him to correct those

deficiencies within 30 days. (Doc. 3). Given his pro se status, the Court also sent Plaintiff an

Application and Affidavit by Incarcerated Person to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees form.

Id. at 8. The Court clearly warned Plaintiff that if he did not comply with the Court’s Order, the

Court would recommend that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Id.

At this time, more than thirty days have passed since the Court entered the February 25,

2026 Order, and Plaintiff has not responded or sought an extension of time to do so.

“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

1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.

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 comply with an order of the Court warrants

invocation of the Court’s inherent power. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this case should

be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 25, 2026 Order. In re

Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice

for want of prosecution.

April 13, 2026 s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

United States Magistrate Judge

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

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).