Mirabile v. Warden Richland Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TYLER MIRABILE,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:25-cv-1159
v.
Judge Michael H. Watson
WARDEN, Richland Correctional
Institution, 	Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
Respondent.
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the NorthEast Ohio Correctional Center1, has
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	For the following
reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Petitioner failed to pay the $5 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
That resulted in the Clerk of Court issuing a Notice of Deficiency on October 7, 2025, giving
Petitioner 30 days to remedy that deficiency. (Doc. 2). He did not. Petitioner also failed to state
any grounds for relief in his habeas corpus petition as required by Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 	That resulted in the Court
issuing a second Notice of Deficiency on October 9, 2025, giving him 30 days to remedy that
deficiency, as well as his failure to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 3). He did not. Then, on December 18, 2025, the Undersigned gave Petitioner
1 According to publicly available on-line records, Petitioner is incarcerated at the NorthEast Ohio
Correctional Center. https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A837495 But when he filed his
Petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at the Richland Correctional Institution. (Doc. 1). It is not clear when Petitioner
Case: 2:25-cv-01159-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/09/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
30 days to show cause why his Petition should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the
previous Notices of Deficiency. (Doc. 4). He did not.
“Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) recognizes the power of the district court to enter a sua sponte
order of dismissal.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Link v. Wabash
R..Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962); Carter v. Memphis, 636 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir. 1980)).
This authority is considered an “inherent power” necessary for “courts to manage their affairs so
as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” 	Link, 370 U.S. at 630-31.
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). 	Accordingly, this case should be dismissed for Petitioner’s
failure to comply with the Court’s orders directing Petitioner to remedy deficiencies in his
filings.
The Undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice for want of prosecution.
The Undersigned further ORDERS that the Clerk mail a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to Petitioner’s new address, to wit: NorthEast Ohio Correctional Center, 2240
Hubbard Road, Youngstown, OH, 44505.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those
was transferred from Richland to NorthEast. But the docket does not reflect that any of the mail sent from this Court
to Petitioner, presumably to Richland, was returned as undeliverable.
Case: 2:25-cv-01159-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/09/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence, or may
recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1).
The 	parties 	are 	specifically 	advised 	that 	failure 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo and operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 	See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	The parties are further advised
that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse decision, they may submit arguments in any
objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of appealability should issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.
Date: 	February 9, 2026 	/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01159-MHW-KAJ Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/09/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>