Scheibe v. Wayne County et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK SCHEIBE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAYNE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 5:24-cv-432
DISTRICT JUDGE
CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES E. GRIMES JR.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
On January 20, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause which
required pro se Plaintiff Mark Schiebe to appear in person and explain “why
the Court should not impose sanctions or recommend that sanctions be
imposed up to and including the dismissal of this action for failure to
prosecute.” Doc. 37, at 2. Plaintiff failed to appear in person or otherwise show
cause for his failure to participate. For the following reasons, the Court
recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure
to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Background
On January 6, 2026, the court issued a Case Management Conference
(CMC) Scheduling Order. Doc. 33. In the CMC Scheduling Order, the Court
directed the parties case to attend to certain matters:
1. 	The Court ordered the parties to attend a civil
Rule 16 Case Management Conference, which the
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 1 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Court scheduled for January 20, 2026, in Courtroom
11A.
2. 	The Court directed that “[t]he parties are
required to exchange initial disclosures at least 5
days before the CMC.”
3. 	The Court directed that “Plaintiff(s) must
make a demand upon Defendant(s) with a written
description 	and 	monetary 	breakdown 	of 	the
damages claimed.”
See Doc. 33.
As the docket reflects, the Court’s staff mailed the CMC Scheduling
Order to Plaintiff. See January 6, 2024 Docket Entry.
On January 19, 2026, the Defendants filed a notice in which they
explained that they had served initial disclosures on Plaintiff via U.S. Mail on
January 15, 2026, five days before the scheduled CMC. See Doc. 34.
On January 20, 2026, the Court attempted to conduct the scheduled
CMC. Plaintiff did not appear and did not notify the Court or Defendants of
any reason for his failure to appear. See Doc. 35. On January 20, 2026, the
Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which directed Plaintiff to appear in
Courtroom 11A at 2:00 p.m. on February 5, 2026, to explain “why the Court
should not impose sanctions or recommend that sanctions be imposed up to
and including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.” Doc. 37, at
2.
On February 5, 2026, the Court conducted the scheduled Show Cause
hearing. Plaintiff did not appear. The Court addressed the above timeline of
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 2 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

3
events on the record and allowed Defendants’ counsel an opportunity to
address the timeline of events that have transpired in this case and Plaintiff’s
engagement, or lack thereof.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the voluntary dismissal of
a complaint where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, or comply with a Court Order.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b). Dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates as an adjudication on the merits.”
Id. The Supreme Court has long held that district courts have “the inherent
power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.” Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991) (citing Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 632 (1962)).
The Sixth Circuit has articulated four factors, none of which are
dispositive, that a district court should weigh when considering whether to
dismiss an action under Rule 41(b). They are:
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness,
bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was
prejudiced by the dismissed party’s 	conduct; (3)
whether 	the 	dismissed 	party 	was 	warned 	that
failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4)
whether 	less 	drastic 	sanctions 	were 	imposed 	or
considered before dismissal was ordered.
1 	“Although the language of Rule 41(b) appears to require a motion by the
defendant,” a “‘district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua
sponte for failure to prosecute.’” Marchand v. Smith & Nephew, No. 11-2621,
2013 WL 6780559, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 19, 2013) (quoting Chambers v.
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48 (1991)).
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 3 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

4
Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dept., 529 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 2008); see
also Shavers v. Bergh, 516 F. App’x 568, 569–70 (6th Cir. 2013).
Here, as to the first factor, Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute is intentional
or willful. As of the February 5, 2026 Show Cause hearing, Plaintiff had failed
to attend two court-ordered hearings, including his own show cause hearing
and, as a result, failed to comply with multiple court orders and various
directives in those orders. Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse him from
following “straightforward procedural requirements that a layperson can
comprehend as easily as a lawyer.” Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 109 (6th
Cir. 1991); see Ward v. Am. Pizza Co., 279 F.R.D. 45l, 458 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
(collecting cases). The Court’s orders have been clear and simple. As a result,
Plaintiff’s failure to participate is willful and this factor weighs in support of
dismissal.
As to the second factor, Defendants have “‘waste[d] time, money, and
effort in pursuit of cooperation which [the plaintiff] was legally obligated to
provide.’” Schafer, 529 F.3d at 737 (citation omitted). Defendant’s counsel
prepared and submitted initial disclosures. Counsel also appeared in person at
both the CMC and the Show Cause hearing. This latter appearance would not
have been required had Plaintiff participated in this dispute because there
would not have been a need for a Show Cause hearing. So the second factor
weighs in favor of dismissal.
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 4 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

5
As to the third factor, Plaintiff was warned about the possible result of
his failure to participate. See Doc. 37. Additionally, as far as the Court can
discern, Plaintiff’s failure to meaningfully engage has not been related to any
nuance or complexity related to federal litigation. As noted, while some
latitude may be extended to pro se litigants “when dealing with sophisticated
legal issues ... there is no cause for extending this margin to straightforward
procedural requirements that a layperson can comprehend as easily as a
lawyer.” Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 109; see also Fields v. Cnty. of Lapeer, No. 99–
2191, 2000 WL 1720727, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2000) (“it is incumbent on
litigants, even those proceeding pro se, to follow ... rules of procedure”) (quoting
Bradenburg 	v. 	Beaman, 	632 	F.2d 	120, 	122 	(10th 	Cir. 	1980)). 	Out 	of
appreciation for a defendant’s right to fair and timely resolution of litigation,
pro se litigants should not “be accorded special consideration” when they fail to
adhere to readily comprehended court deadlines. See Jourdan, 951 F.2d at 110.
Because Plaintiff’s failure to participate has been related to straightforward-
procedural issues, such as compliance with basic Court orders, and because he
was warned of the consequences for his failure to participate, this factor weighs
in favor of dismissal.
As to the fourth and final factor, the Court has considered alternative
sanctions. See Shavers, 516 F. App’x at 571 (a district court is not required “to
incant a litany of the available lesser sanctions”). But due to Plaintiff’s failure
to meaningfully engage, lack of response or effort to communicate with the
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 5 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>

6
Defense counsel, and his failure to comply with at least two Court orders and
the various directives contained therein, the Court finds this factor weighs in
favor of dismissal.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
Dated: February 5, 2026
/s/ James E. Grimes Jr.
James E. Grimes Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days after the party objecting has been served
with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure
to file objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the
District Court’s order. See Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–531 (6th
Cir. 2019).
Case: 5:24-cv-00432-CEF Doc #: 39 Filed: 02/05/26 6 of 6. PageID #: <pageID>