Wenmoth v. Franklin County, Ohio et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
REV. DR. ANDREW D. WENMOTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DALLAS BALDWIN, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-678
District Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this prisoner civil rights action by filing a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. 	(Doc. 1).
On December 1, 2025, the Court issued an Order for plaintiff to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 	(Doc. 11). 	As noted in the Order, the Court
previously issued two Deficiency Orders requiring plaintiff to pay the to pay the full filing fee or
provide a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement within thirty (30) days. 	(See
Doc. 6, 8). 	In each Deficiency Order plaintiff was advised that failure to comply would result in
the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. 	(See Doc. 6 at PageID 112-13; Doc. 8 at
PageID 119). 	On December 1, 2025—after plaintiff failed to comply with the Orders of the
Court—the Court again resent the most recent Deficiency Order to plaintiff at his current
address1 and ordered plaintiff to show cause, in writing, and within fifteen (15) days of the date
1 On October 8, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, indicating that he was moved from the Franklin
County Corrections Center to the Correctional Reception Center. 	(See Doc. 9). 	On October 23, 2025, the October
1, 2025 Deficiency Order was resent to plaintiff at the address provided. 	On December 1, 2025, because it
appeared that plaintiff was located at the Southeastern Correctional Institution, the Order to show cause, as well as
the October 1, 2025 Deficiency Order, was sent to him at his current address. 	Viewed at
Case: 2:25-cv-00678-JLG-KLL Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
of the Order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 	(Doc. 11).
To date, more than fifteen (15) days later, plaintiff has failed to respond to the December
1, 2025 Order or otherwise comply with the Deficiency Orders issued in this case.
District courts have the inherent 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, 630-631 (1962). 	See also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991). 	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).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED for lack of
prosecution.
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
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).
Date:
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A848391.
12/18/2025
Case: 2:25-cv-00678-JLG-KLL Doc #: 12 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>