Ajagha v. Mullin et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PRUDENCIA AJAGHA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-396-SLP
)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN et al., )
)
Respondents. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner’s Counsel initiated this action by filing a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. (ECF No. 1). On February 18, 2026, this matter
was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
(ECF No. 11). On March 3, 2026, United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred the
matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 14). For the following reasons, the undersigned
recommends the Court DISMISS the complaint without prejudice based on counsel for
Petitioner’s failure to follow the Court’s Rules and Orders.
I. DISCUSSION
On March 9, 2026 and again on March 24, 2026, the undersigned directed
Petitioner’s attorney to file an entry of appearance, as required by Local Civil Rule 83.4,
show association with local counsel or seek relief from that requirement under LCvR
83.3(c) and if counsel for Petitioner is not admitted to practice before this court, an
application to be admitted
pro hac vice in accordance with LCvR 83.2(g) must also have
been submitted. Counsel was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and
Case 5:26-cv-00396-SLP Document 19 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 3

this Court’s Local Civil Rules would result in the recommendation of dismissal of this
action. Counsel’s most recent deadline passed on March 24, 2026.
See ECF Nos. 15 and
16. Notification of these entries was sent via email to counsel for Petitioner at
info@conbaylaw.com. The email address on record with the transferring Court, the
District of Maryland.
See Court only entries dated 03/09/26 and 03/24/2026.
To date, counsel for Petitioner has not complied with either Order. He also has not
sought an extension of time or shown good cause for failing to comply. Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b), a court may dismiss an action if the petitioner “fails to prosecute or to
comply with these rules or a court order.” Courts have consistently interpreted this rule
to permit
sua sponte dismissal.
Huggins v. Sup. Ct. of the U.S., 480 F. App’x 915, 916-17
(10th Cir. 2012);
AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552
F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) (“A district court undoubtedly has discretion to sanction
a party for failing to prosecute or defend a case, or for failing to comply with local or
federal procedural rules.” (
quoting Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10th Cir.
2002)). And if dismissal is without prejudice, the court may dismiss without attention to
the non-exhaustive list of factors that, by contrast, must inform a dismissal with prejudice.
AdvantEdge Bus. Grp., 552 F.3d at 1236 & n.2.
The undersigned finds that Petitioner’s counsel, Conrad Njinuwo Bayelle’s failure
to comply with this Court’s Orders and Rules, together with the Court’s inherent power
to manage judicial resources, warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice.
See
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 n.2 (10th Cir. 2007)
(noting Rule 41(b) permits courts “to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to
Case 5:26-cv-00396-SLP Document 19 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 3

. . . comply with the rules of civil procedures or court’s orders”);
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,
370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (discussing the inherent power of a court to dismiss suits
for lack of prosecution).
II. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended that this action be
DISMISSED without prejudice for the Petitioner’s failure to comply with this Court’s
Orders and Rules. Also pending is Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Response to the Complaint. (ECF No. 18). Adoption of this recommendation will render
this Motion moot. Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of Court by April 24, 2026, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Petitioner is further advised that any failure to make timely objection to this Report
and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues
addressed herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED on April 10, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00396-SLP Document 19 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 3