Reigelsperger et al v. Polaris Industries, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JACOB REIGELSPERGER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-148
vs.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 38); (2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE THIS CASE
FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION; (3) CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD NOT
BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND FINDING THAT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
SHOULD BE DENIED ON APPEAL; (4) TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
(Doc. No. 26); AND (5) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Caroline H.
Gentry (Doc. No. 38), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties
have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. 	Upon careful review of the foregoing, and construing pro se Plaintiffs’
allegations in their favor1, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be
adopted. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc. No. 38) in its entirety; (2) DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE for want of
prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); (3) CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and finds that Plaintiffs should be denied
leave to appeal in forma pauperis; (4) TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion for sanctions
1 The Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw due to a breakdown in the
attorney-client relationship. See Doc. Nos. 35, 36. Plaintiffs have not retained new counsel. See Doc. No. 38
at PageID 369-70. As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiffs’ documents and allegations are liberally construed in
their favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 39 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

against Plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence (Doc. No. 26); and (5) TERMINATES this case on the
Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 19, 2025 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00148-MJN-CHG Doc #: 39 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>