Doe et al v. Southwestern City School District Board of Education et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Jane Doe, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
Southwestern City School District
Board of Education, etal.,
Defendants.
CaseNo. 2:24-cv-4157
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Vascura
ORDER
In September 2025, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs' counsel's
motion to withdraw from this case. ECF No. 19. The Magistrate Judge ordered
Plaintiffs to file a notice within sixty days as to whether they retained new counsel
or intended to proceed without counsel. Id. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge
directed Plaintiffs' former counsel to serve a copy of the Order on Plaintiffs. Id.
When Plaintiffs failed to submit a notice by the deadline, the Magistrate
Judge again ordered Plaintiffs to file the notice and gave them fourteen days to
do so. ECF No. 20. The Magistrate Judge further ordered Plaintiffs to provide a
mailing address if they intended to proceed without counsel and cautioned
Plaintiffs that failure to comply would result in sanctions, including dismissal of
the case with prejudice. Id.
The second deadline, however, passed with no response from Plaintiffs.
So, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiffs to show cause within fourteen days
as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and as a
Case: 2:24-cv-04157-MHW-CMV Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

sanction for failing to comply with the previous Orders. ECF No. 21. The
Magistrate Judge repeated her warning to Plaintiffs that failure to show cause
could result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Id.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs did not respond to the show cause Order. On
February 20, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
("R&R"), recommending that the Court dismiss the case under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) because of their failure to prosecute. ECF No. 22. After
setting forth the standard of review and factors for consideration, the Magistrate
Judge observed that Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the three prior Orders
amounted to "bad faith or contumacious conduct" supporting dismissal. Id. at
PAGEID # 89. As such, the Magistrate Judge concluded that "no alternative
sanction would protect the integrity of the pretrial process. " Id. at PAGEID # 90.
The Magistrate Judge also noted that Plaintiffs had been explicitly warned about
the consequences of their failure to comply. Id. at PAGEID # 89.
The parties were advised of the right to object to the R&R and of the
consequences of failing to do so. ECF No. 22 at PAGEID # 90. No objections
have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed.
Having received no objections, 1 the R&R is ADOPTED in part. This
matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to Rule 41 (b), for failure
1 The Magistrate Judge's Orders and R&R were sent by regular mail to Plaintiffs at the
address listed on the docket. That address, though, belongs to Plaintiffs' former
counsel. However, the Court understands from Plaintiffs' former counsel that he timely
notified Plaintiffs via text message about the Orders and the R&R and about the
Case No. 2:24-cv-4157 Page 2 of 3
Case: 2:24-cv-04157-MHW-CMV Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

to prosecute. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants and terminate this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
M CHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
deadline to object thereto (despite having no responsibility to apprise Plaintiffs of the
same following his withdrawal from the case).
Case No. 2:24-cv-4157 Page 3 of 3
Case: 2:24-cv-04157-MHW-CMV Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/10/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>