UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON, #471817, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-12789 

 Honorable Matthew F. Leitman 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

GEORGE LNU, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGAINST 

DEFENDANT WOERN FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY EFFECTUATE SERVICE 

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 3, 2014, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, now an inmate at the Marquette Branch 

Prison, filed his complaint in this case, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, against several defendants. 

(Doc. #1). On October 30, 2014, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial 

purposes. (Doc. #16). 

An inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify each defendant 

against whom relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the action by serving on 

him or her a summons and copy of the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Where, as here, a 

plaintiff is proceeding without having to prepay the filing fee, the District Court bears the 

responsibility for issuing the plaintiff’s process to a United States Marshal, who must effectuate 

service on the defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified them in the complaint. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

On September 18, 2014, the Clerk’s Office received a letter from a representative of the 

Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) indicating that service could not be accepted on 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 107 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 744
2 

behalf of certain defendants for certain specified reasons. (Doc. #10). Subsequently, this Court 

directed the MDOC to provide additional information about five named defendants, so that the 

United States Marshal Service could again attempt service. (Doc. #40). These defendants were: 

“Woern (Social Worker),” “Dr. Abdullateef,” “George LNU Psychiatrist,” “Tammy (Nurse),” 

and “Angie (Nurse).” (Id.). At that time, Plaintiff was notified that, in the event that service 

could not be accomplished on these defendants at the addresses provided by the MDOC, he may 

be required supply the Court with the correct names and addresses of these defendants and/or to 

show cause why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, as against them. (Id.). 

Subsequently, service was accomplished on two of the five defendants at the addresses 

provided by the MDOC (Defendants Dr. Abdellatif and Angela Vettraino). However, the 

Marshal was unable to serve Defendants Susan George, Tamara Scheppelman, or “Woern.” 

As a result, on August 3, 2015, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to provide 

better addresses for these three defendants so that service could be effectuated. (Doc. #58). On 

October 8, 2015, Plaintiff responded to the Court’s Order, indicating his belief that Defendant 

Susan George “is still the psychiatrist” at Macomb Correctional Facility (“MRF”), and 

Defendant Tamara Scheppelman “is still the nurse” at MRF. (Doc. #75 at 2). Plaintiff further 

indicated that he “does not know [the] standing of Defendant Woern,” but suggested that perhaps 

she is employed by Corizon. (Id. at 1). 

As a result, on November 3, 2015, the Court issued a second order directing the MDOC 

to provide additional information to the Marshal, on a confidential basis, about Defendants 

George, Scheppelman, and Woern so that service could be attempted on these defendants once 

more. (Doc. #88). Plaintiff was again advised that, in the event that service could not be 

accomplished on Defendants George, Scheppelman, and/or Woern at the addresses provided by 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 107 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 745
3 

the MDOC, his action may be dismissed, without prejudice, as against these defendants. (Id.). 

On January 13, 2016, executed waiver of service forms were filed on behalf of two of 

these defendants – (Susan) George and (Tammy) Scheppelman. (Docs. #102, 103). However, 

the waiver of service form for Defendant Woern was again returned unexecuted, this time with a 

letter from Nicole Willson of the MDOC’s Litigation Section indicating that Woern “is no longer 

employed by the State of Michigan, and there is no address on file.” (Doc. #98 at 1).1

 In sum, 

despite multiple attempts to secure a valid address where Defendant Woern could be served, the 

Court was unable to obtain one. 

Accordingly, on January 11, 2016, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause, in writing, by 

January 29, 2016, why his complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice as against 

Defendant Woern. (Doc. #101). Plaintiff was again advised that it is his responsibility to supply 

the Court with the correct name and address of this defendant and/or to show cause why this 

action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, as against her. (Id.). 

On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, indicating, 

inter alia, his belief that the address of Defendant Woern, a licensed social worker, could be 

obtained through the “State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, 

Bureau of Health Care Services ....” (Doc. #104 at 2). While it would not be appropriate for the 

Court to conduct independent research into Defendant Woern’s identity and/or whereabouts, see 

e.g., Smith v. Palmer, 2011 WL 2623301 at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 5, 2011) (“The ironclad 

prohibition on courts rendering legal advice to litigants does not change merely because a party 

elects to proceed pro se.”), the Court did review the referenced public body’s website, and was 

 

1

 While Willson’s assertion that no address could be found for Defendant Woern is unusual, the 

Court notes that Willson’s office identified the addresses (and full names) for defendants George 

and Scheppelman, which enabled the Marshals to serve them. Thus, the Court has no reason to 

doubt Willson’s statement regarding Defendant Woern. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 107 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 746
4 

nevertheless unable to locate an address for Defendant Woern. 

II. ANALYSIS 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides that if service is not effectuated on a 

defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint, the court must dismiss the action without 

prejudice as to that defendant. “Absent a showing of good cause to justify a failure to effect 

timely service, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compel dismissal.” Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 

217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Habib v. General Motors Corp., 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994)). 

It is a plaintiff’s burden to establish good cause for failing to timely effectuate service. See 

Habib, 15 F.3d at 73. Further, Local Rule 41.2 provides that if the parties “have taken no action 

for a reasonable time,” the Court may enter an order dismissing the case for lack of prosecution. 

It has now been more than eighteen months since Plaintiff filed his complaint in this case, 

and despite being given multiple opportunities, he has failed to provide the Court with a correct 

address where Defendant Woern can be served. At this point, with all other Defendants having 

been served, the case simply must go forward with respect to those Defendants. Therefore, 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s 

complaint against Defendant Woern be dismissed without prejudice. See Abel v. Harp, 122 F. 

App’x 248, 250 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Byrd, 94 F.3d at 219). 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s complaint against 

Defendant Woern be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 

and E.D. Mich. L.R. 41.2.

Dated: February 8, 2016 s/David R. Grand 

Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 107 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 747
5 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any 

party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. 

Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of 

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th 

Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will be preserved for 

the Court’s appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not preserve all 

objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 

1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2006). 

Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 

72.1(d)(2). 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be 

concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the 

objections. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 8, 2016. 

 s/Eddrey O. Butts 

 EDDREY O. BUTTS 

 Case Manager

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 107 Filed 02/08/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 748