Lang v. Brown County Detention Center

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
JAMES H. LANG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BROWN COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-511
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1
On April 15, 2026, the District Judge adopted the Undersigned’s recommendation to
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. (See Docs. 13; 16). In so doing,
the District Judge also granted Plaintiff permission to file an Amended Complaint remedying the
stated deficiencies on or before May 11, 2026. (Doc. 16, PageID 60).
At this time, well beyond the May 11, 2026, deadline, Plaintiff has not filed an Amended
Complaint or sought an extension of time to do so.
“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). 	This case should be dismissed for
Plaintiff’s failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Court following
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 1:25-cv-00511-SJD-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
the April 15, 2026 dismissal of his initial Complaint. See In re Alea, 286 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir.
2002).
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice
for want of prosecution and that Plaintiff’s previously filed motions for a hearing and to transfer
venue (Docs. 14; 15) be DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
June 4, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00511-SJD-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
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 Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520,
530 (6th Cir. 2019). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:25-cv-00511-SJD-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/04/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>