J. B. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
J.B.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:22-cv-3776
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
v. 	Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
RED ROOF INNS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff
added an additional party, Defendant Ganesh Hotel Group, LLC. (Id.) The docket reflects that
Defendant Ganesh Hotel Group, LLC was served on October 21, 2025. (ECF No. 96.)
Defendant Ganesh Hotel Group, LLC did not respond to the Amended Complaint, nor did
Plaintiff apply for an entry of default. On November 24, 2025, the Court issued a Show Cause
Order requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate good cause as to why her claims against Defendant
Ganesh Hotel Group, LLC should not be dismissed for want of prosecution by December 8,
2024. (ECF No. 99.) Plaintiff failed to do so.
Under the circumstances presented in the instant case, the Undersigned recommends
dismissal of Plaintiff’s action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). The Court’s inherent authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of their failure to
prosecute is expressly recognized in Rule 41(b), which authorizes involuntary dismissal for
failure to prosecute or to comply with rules of procedure or court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (noting that “a federal district court has
Case: 2:22-cv-03776-ALM-EPD Doc #: 100 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute” as recognized in Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–32 (1962)). “This measure is available to the district court as
a tool to effect management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-
supported courts [and] opposing parties.” Knoll v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363
(6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted); Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Schs.,
138 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that “[p]rior notice, or lack thereof, is [] a key
consideration” in whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) is appropriate).
Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS without
prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ganesh Hotel Group, LLC for failure to
prosecute.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within 14 DAYS, file and serve on all parties any objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Responses to objections must be filed within 14 DAYS after being served with a copy. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review of by the District Judge
and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v.
Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report,
which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . .
. .” (citation omitted)).
Case: 2:22-cv-03776-ALM-EPD Doc #: 100 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 10, 2025 	/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:22-cv-03776-ALM-EPD Doc #: 100 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>