Madaris v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
NIYANA MADARIS, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-519
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant.
On October 22, 2025, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order (Doc. 8).
The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the Order to plaintiff at the address she provided via regular
mail, but the mail was returned as undeliverable, marked “Return to Sender – Vacant – Unable to
Forward.” (Doc. 9). On November 6, 2025, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Doc. 10). Plaintiff failed to
provide an updated address, respond to the Court’s show cause order, or otherwise contact the
Court to resolve this matter.
A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of her cause
of action, see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991), as well as a duty to supply the
Court with notice of any and all changes in address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994
WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Commercial, S.A., 770 F.2d
811, 815 (9th Cir. 1985)). “Federal courts possess certain ‘inherent powers . . . to manage their
own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626,
630-31 (1962)). Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to show cause (Doc. 10) warrants
exercise of the Court’s inherent power and dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case: 1:25-cv-00519-SJD-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
41(b) for failure to prosecute this matter. See Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31; Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108, 109-10 (6th Cir. 1991).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
_________________ 	_____________________________
Date 	Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
12/3/2025
Case: 1:25-cv-00519-SJD-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
NIYANA MADARIS, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-519
Plaintiff, 	Dlott, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.
NOTICE
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).
Case: 1:25-cv-00519-SJD-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 12/03/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>