# JAMES H. LANG v. BROWN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER > District Court, S.D. Ohio · June 4, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11364658 ## Case - **Full name:** JAMES H. LANG v. BROWN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER - **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio - **Decided:** June 4, 2026 - **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/11364658 ## Opinion text UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI JAMES H. LANG, : Case No. 1:25-cv-511 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Susan J. Dlott vs. : Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain : BROWN COUNTY DETENTION : CENTER, : : Defendant. : REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 On April 15, 2026, the District Judge adopted the Undersigned’s recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. (See Docs. 13; 16). In so doing, the District Judge also granted Plaintiff permission to file an Amended Complaint remedying the stated deficiencies on or before May 11, 2026. (Doc. 16, PageID 60). At this time, well beyond the May 11, 2026, deadline, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint 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 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). This case should be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Court following 1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. the April 15, 2026 dismissal of his initial Complaint. See 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 and that Plaintiff’s previously filed motions for a hearing and to transfer venue (Docs. 14; 15) be DENIED as moot. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. June 4, 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 Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). See also 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/11364658. Public record. Not legal advice.