Chandler v. Princeton City School District et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TYANA CHANDLER, 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-231
Plaintiff, 	Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J
vs.
PRINCETON CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 9, 2025, after Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant’s
motions to dismiss and motion to remand, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in
writing, by December 29, 2025, why the motions should not be construed as unopposed
and granted for the reasons stated in the motion. (Doc. 26). The Order also put Plaintiff
on notice that failure to comply with this Order will result in a Report and Recommendation
to the District Judge that Defendant’s motions be granted and Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed. Id. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the pending motions, nor has she
responded to the pending Show Cause Order.
Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this matter and to obey an Order of the Court
warrants dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108, 109–10 (6th Cir.1991). 	District courts have the 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–
31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). See also Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 109. Though
Case: 1:25-cv-00231-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as stated by the Supreme Court, “we have never suggested
that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.” McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106,
113 (1993).
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED
for lack of prosecution; all pending motions (Docs. 6, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) be
DENIED as MOOT and this matter be CLOSED.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00231-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
TYANA CHANDLER, 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-231
Plaintiff, 	Hopkins, J.
Bowman, M.J
vs.
PRINCETON CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. 	All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. 	A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 	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).
Case: 1:25-cv-00231-JPH-SKB Doc #: 28 Filed: 01/15/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>