Sampson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ERNEST SAMPSON,
Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-1529
Plaintiff, 	Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, initiated this case on December
31, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On January 5, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiency in
his application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff did not comply with this
Order by failing to completely fill out the application. (ECF No. 3.) The Court again ordered
Plaintiff to cure these deficiencies within 30 days and expressly cautioned him that failure to
comply “will likely result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.” (ECF No. 4.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply.
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
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
Case: 2:25-cv-01529-SDM-SCS Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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); Steward v. City of Jackson,
8 F. App’x 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001). While the Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status,
dismissal is nevertheless appropriate given Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the readily
comprehended deadlines. See Steward, 8 F. App’x at 296–297 (citing Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d
108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under Rule 41(b).
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).
Response 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,
Case: 2:25-cv-01529-SDM-SCS Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for
appeal . . . .” (citation omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 9, 2026 	/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 	.
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-01529-SDM-SCS Doc #: 6 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>