Fields v. Preble County Jail et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF omo
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SAMUEL A. FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PREBLE COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3 :25-cv-260
Judge Michael J. Newman
Chief Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.
Bowman
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate who was incarcerated at the Preble County Jail, in Eaton,
Ohio, 1 filed this prose civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). For the
following reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action
be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff failed to file a civil cover sheet, as required by S.D. Ohio Civ. Rule
3.l(a). He also failed to submit the $405 filing fee orto file a motion for leave to proceed
informa pauperis. For that reason, the Clerk of Court on July 30, 2025, issued a Notice
of Deficiency and mailed to Plaintiff at the return address he provided on the envelope in
1 	It is unlikely that Plaintiff remains incarcerated at the Preble County Jail, since it
appears from publicly available records that the criminal case against an individual named
Samuel A. Fields in Preble County, Ohio, under case number 25CR0 14511, has been dismissed
with prejudice.
https://pa.preblecountyohio.net/eservices/searchresults.page?x=GToJUyVDYyluRL-
N4epVZVmK61p-9wNgSabi85SST1 *AEfCaUxQP7KLPR6S4J2D0Kxt4bUNjGV9srw-
6kDhyiw This Court may take judicial notice of court records that are available online to
members of the public. See Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642,648 n.5 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Lyons v.
Stovall, 188 F.3d 327,332 n.3 (6th Cir. 1999)).
Case: 3:25-cv-00260-MJN-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

which he sent his Complaint a copy of the Notice, a civil cover sheet, and a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The Notice advised Plaintiff that he was
required to submit the requested information and/or materials within 30 days.
After 60 days had passed without Plaintiff having submitted any of the required
documents, the Undersigned gave Plaintiff 30 days to show cause why this action should
not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's July 30, 2025, Notice of
Deficiency. (Doc. 3). To date, more than 60 days have passed, and Plaintiff has not
submitted the requested materials or responded to the Order to Show Cause.
"Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua
sponte order of dismissal." Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing
Link v. Wabash R .. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Carter v. Memphis, 636 F.2d 159,
161 (6th Cir. 1980)). This authority is considered an "inherent power" necessary for
"courts to manage their affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
cases." Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31. 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).
Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for Plaintiffs failure to comply with the
Court's July 30, 2025, Notice of Deficiency and the Court's October 2, 2025, Order to
Show Cause.
The Undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED
without prejudice for want of prosecution.
2
Case: 3:25-cv-00260-MJN-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN FOURTEEN (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 a timely motion for 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. A party may respond to another party's
objections WITIDN FOURTEEN (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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12/22/2025
3
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00260-MJN-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>