Fitts v. Cool

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN DARNELL FITTS,
Plaintiff,
Case Number 2:24-cv-1040
v. 	JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
LT. CRABTREE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on January 12, 2026. (ECF No. 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court dismiss this case for failure to prosecute and failure of service of process. (Id. at PageID
91.)
Plaintiff Jonathan Darnell Fitts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this civil
rights action in March 2024. (ECF No. 1-1.) Following an initial screen of his Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the Court concluded that some
claims warranted further development and permitted Plaintiff to proceed on those claims, but
dismissed others for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.)
Since then, Plaintiff’s remaining claims have stalled because Plaintiff failed to provide
the completed summons forms and U.S. Marshal forms necessary to serve the remaining
Defendants with process. (ECF No. 19.) As the Magistrate Judge explained, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to provide these forms on two occasions and warned that failure to do so could result in
the dismissal of this case. (ECF Nos. 16, 18, 19.) Plaintiff did not provide service forms and the
remaining Defendants have not been served.
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this case for two reasons. First,
Plaintiff’s failures to comply with the Court’s Orders warrant dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 19, PageID 90–91.) Second, the 90-day deadline for service of
process set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) has elapsed, and Plaintiff has not shown
good cause for the failure of service. (Id. at PageID 91.) The Magistrate Judge further
recommends that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any order
adopting the Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and deny Plaintiff
leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (Id.)
Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute
provides:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file
written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in
the report and recommendation. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the
consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 19, PageID 92–93.) Plaintiff did not object to the
Report and Recommendation.
The Court recognizes that the mail sent to Plaintiff containing the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable to the address provided by Plaintiff
in his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff’s pro se status does not exempt him from
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
basic requirements of prosecuting an action in this Court. “Plaintiff has an affirmative duty to
notify the court of any change in address.” Oesch v. Ohio Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:19-cv-1758,
2019 WL 2289836, at *1 (S.D. Ohio May 29, 2019) (Watson, J.) (citing Barber v. Runyon, No.
93-6318, 1994 WL 163765, at *1 (6th Cir. May 2, 1994)) (“If [pro se Plaintiff’s] address
changed, she had an affirmative duty to supply the court with notice of any and all changes in her
address.”). Plaintiff has been advised that he must update his address if it changes. (ECF Nos. 7,
14, 18, 21.)
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS (ECF No. 19) the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute and failure of
service of process. Further, the Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an
appeal of this Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation would not be
taken in good faith.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. The Clerk is further
DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Jonathan Darnell Fitts, #753-529, at Ross
Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 7010, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/6/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-01040-EAS-CHG Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/06/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>