Clark v. Wildwood Village Apartments et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DIAMOND CLARK,
Plaintiff, Case Number 2:26-cv-611
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
v. Magistrate Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall
WILDWOOD VILLAGE
APARTMENTS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and deny as moot Plaintiff Diamond Clark’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). (ECF No. 10.)
In May 2026, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause and explain within 14
days: (1) why this case is not merely April Clark1 asserting claims under the name Diamond
Clark; and (2) April Clark’s involvement, if any, in this litigation. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff did not
respond. In June 2026, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause within seven days
and explain why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No. 7.) The
Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that failure to respond will result in the recommendation that
this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff again did not respond. As a result,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss
1 As explained by the Magistrate Judge, April Clark is an individual who has been declared a
vexatious litigator due to her repetitive, excessive, and baseless filings in this Court. (ECF No. 6;
see Case No. 2:23-cv-04201, ECF No. 23.)
Case: 2:26-cv-00611-EAS-SCS Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
this action with prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF
No. 10.) The Magistrate Judge also recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be denied as moot.
After a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, any party may object
within 14 days by serving and filing written objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to object results in waiver of the
right to a de novo review of the report and recommendation by the district court. See United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff was advised of her right to
object to the Report and Recommendation and the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No.
10, PageID 11–12.) Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 10.) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Additionally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT (ECF No. 2) Plaintiff Diamond
Clark’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, terminate this case on the docket, and mail
a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Diamond Clark at P.O. Box 13015, Whitehall, Ohio, 43213.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10/13/2026 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:26-cv-00611-EAS-SCS Doc #: 11 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>