Mayberry v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
ROBERT MAYBERRY,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, WARREN CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION.
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-617
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1-1). On October 10, 2025, the Court issued an Order requiring Petitioner to show cause in
writing, within thirty (30) days, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice on the
ground that Petitioner has not exhausted available state-court remedies. (Doc. 4). Petitioner was
advised that “failure to respond to this Order within the requisite 30-day period will result in the
case being dismissed for want of prosecution.” (Id. at PageID 48). More than thirty days have
passed, and Petitioner has not complied with the Order of the Court.
“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). Failure of a party to respond to an
order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power in this federal habeas corpus
proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
Case: 1:25-cv-00617-SJD-SCS Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to comply with the
Court’s October 10, 2025, Order. In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2002).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.
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).
February 10, 2026 	s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00617-SJD-SCS Doc #: 7 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>