govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_26-cv-00268-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI 
 
 
Sahdi Cunningham, 
 
     Plaintiff,        Case No. 1:26cv268 
 
v.      Judge Michael R. Barrett   
 
James Daniels, et al.,         
 
     Defendants. 
 
ORDER 
 
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 
by the Magistrate Judge on May 21, 2026.  (Doc. 4).  Proper notice was given to Plaintiff 
(who proceeds pro se) under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), including 
notice that he may forfeit rights on appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a 
timely manner.  United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see Berkshire v. 
Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).   No objections to the R&R (Doc. 4) have been 
filed. 
As background, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in  forma pauperis in 
connection with a civil rights complaint in this Court.  (Doc. 1).  On March 31, 2026, mail 
sent from the Court to Plaintiff’s address of record was returned marked “RETURN TO 
SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO FORWARD.”  (Doc. 2).  Noting that “ [i]t appears that 
Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address, ” the Magistrate 
Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause “stating why this Court should not dismiss this case 
for lack of prosecution.”  (Doc. 3 PAGEID 28).1  After his 30-day deadline to respond had 
 
1 A pro se litigant has an affirmative duty to diligently pursue the prosecution of his cause of action, see 
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th Cir. 1991), as well as a duty to supply the Court with notice of 
Case: 1:26-cv-00268-MRB-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>
passed, the Magistrate Judge issued the aforementioned R&R in which she recommends 
that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.  (Doc. 4 PAGEID 
29–30).  
As the Magistrate Judge explained, “[d]istrict 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, 630–31 (1962).  Failure of a party to inform the Court of a change in address 
or to respond to an order of the Court warrants invocation of the Court’s inherent power.  
(Doc. 4 PAGEID 29 –30 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).   The undersigned agrees, noting 
further that the R&R sent from the Court (on May 21, 2026) was returned                                 
(on June 4, 2026) marked “Return to Sender He do not live Here Anymore N ever Did!”  
(Doc. 5).2 
The R&R (Doc. 4) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.  
Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge , this civil action is 
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.    
 
         /s/ Michael R. Barrett                                                 
        Michael R. Barrett, Judge   
       United States District Court 
 
 
any and all changes in his address. See Barber v. Runyon, No. 93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. 
May 2, 1994) (citing Pena v. Seguros La Commercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 815 (9th Cir. 1985)).  
 
2 The retuned envelope also bears a USPS sticker listing a new address for Plaintiff.  However, the Court 
is under no obligation (and will thus decline) to resend either the show cause order or the R&R.  
Case: 1:26-cv-00268-MRB-SKB Doc #: 6 Filed: 06/09/26 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight