Grant v. Montgomery County et al, No. 3:2019cv00080 - Document 29 (S.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (DOC. # 26 ); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 12/15/21. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grant v. Montgomery County et al Doc. 29 Case: 3:19-cv-00080-WHR-SLO Doc #: 29 Filed: 12/15/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION WILLIE GRANT, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:19-cv-80 V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, JUDGE WALTER H. RICE eta!., Defendants. DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (DOC. #26); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY Plaintiff Willie Grant, who is now proceeding prose, filed suit against Montgomery County and its Board of Commissioners, the City of Dayton and its Board of Commissioners, and City of Dayton police officers Jamie Luckoski and Randy Betsinger. The Court previously dismissed all claims against Montgomery County and its Board of Commissioners. Doc. #22. This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants City of Dayton, Ohio, Officer Jamie Luckoski and Officer Randy Betsinger's Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute or, in the alternative, Request for an Order Compelling Production of Discovery, Doc. #26. On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to that motion by November 12, 2021, may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. Doc. #27. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:19-cv-00080-WHR-SLO Doc #: 29 Filed: 12/15/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 150 No response was filed. On November 23, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington issued an Order to Show Cause no later than December 10, 2021 , why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was again warned that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of the lawsuit. Doc. #28. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause within the time allotted. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b), the Court SUSTAINS Defendants' unopposed Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute, Doc. #26, and DISMISSES all remaining claims WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. Date: December 15, 2021 WALTER H. RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
