Lang v. Brown County Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
James H. Lang,
Plaintiff,
v.
Brown County Detention Center,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-511
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation, Dismissing Case, and
Denying Motions as Moot
This matter is before the Court on the June 4, 2026 Report and Recommendation issued
by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. recommending dismissal of this action. (Doc. 17.)
Plaintiff James H. Lang filed a pro se Complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for
alleged violations of his First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Brown
County Detention Center, the jail where he was held as a pretrial detainee. The Court issued an
Order on April 15, 2026, dismissing the Complaint because the Brown County Detention Center
is not a legal entity capable of being sued and Lang’s allegations were insufficient to state a
claim for relief against Brown County itself. (Doc. 16 PageID 59–60.) But the Court also granted
Lang permission to file an amended complaint not exceeding twenty (20) pages in length on or
before May 11, 2026 if he wanted to remedy the deficiencies in the Complaint. (Id. at PageID
60.)
Lang did not file an amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Silvain issued the June 4,
2026 Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the case “for Plaintiff’s
failure to file an Amended Complaint within the time permitted by the Court following the April
15, 2026 dismissal of his initial Complaint.” (Doc. 17 PageID 61–62.) “The authority of a court
Case: 1:25-cv-00511-SJD-PBS Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/22/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power,’
governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their
own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.
Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–631 (1962); see also Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991)
(upholding dismissal of a pro se plaintiff who “failed to adhere to readily comprehended court
deadlines of which he was well-aware”). It is currently well past the May 11, 2026 deadline, and
Lang has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time do so. Lang’s failure to
file an amended complaint justifies the dismissal of this action.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED, and this matter
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Lang’s pending Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc.
14), Motions for a Hearing (Doc. 15, 18), and Motion to Compel (Doc. 19) are DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00511-SJD-PBS Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/22/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>