UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARNELL BROWN, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 4:14-cv-14350 

v. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

NICOLE CARTER, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CARTER AND POPOVSKI FOR 

FAILURE TO TIMELY EFFECT SERVICE 

I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should dismiss without prejudice 

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Nicole Carter and Dushna Popovski for 

failure to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

II. REPORT 

 A. Background 

 Plaintiff Darnell Brown, who is proceeding without the assistance of 

counsel, filed his Complaint and application to proceed without prepayment of fees 

on November 12, 2014, asserting claims under Title VII. (DE 1, 2.) On November 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 21 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 62
2 

13, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s application and directed the United States 

Marshal to serve Defendants Nicole Carter, Pellumb Sulaj, and Dushna Popovski 

at City Hall Coney Island, 10617 W. Jefferson, MI, 48213. (DE 4.) To date, only 

Defendant Sulaj has been served and appeared in the case. The summonses were 

returned unexecuted as to Defendants Carter and Popovski. (DE 16 and 17.) 

 On March 27, 2015, the Court issued a Show Cause Order requiring Plaintiff 

to show cause as to why he failed to serve Defendants Carter and Popovski in the 

time allowed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (DE 18.) The 

Court directed Plaintiff to provide additional addresses for these Defendants and to 

propose a “reasonable and conservative extended timeline for service,” in the event 

that it chose to permit an extension and order further action by the U.S. Marshals 

Service. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to provide good cause would 

result in a Report and Recommendation that his claims against Defendants Carter 

and Popovski be dismissed. 

 Plaintiff timely replied, but did not provide additional addresses or ask for an 

extension for the time in which to effect service. (DE 19.) Instead, Plaintiff 

indicates that he “cannot serve the other Defendants in this case” and that he is 

“unable” to do so, despite making a diligent effort to find their addresses. Plaintiff 

instead asks the Court to proceed with the case against only Defendant Sulaj. No 

further explanation is provided. 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 21 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 63
3 

 B. Analysis 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides in relevant part as follows: 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—

must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or 

order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 

shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for 

service for an appropriate period. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, more than 120 days have lapsed since Plaintiff’s 

November 12, 2014 Complaint. The Court provided Plaintiff with notice of the 

service deficiency in its March 27, 2015 Show Cause Order. In his Response, 

Plaintiff indicates that he is unable to serve Defendants Carter and Popovski and 

asks that his claims proceed against Defendant Sulaj. The Undersigned therefore 

RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 

claims against Defendants Carter and Popovski for failure to timely effect service. 

The Undersigned further recommends that Plaintiff’s case proceed against only 

Defendant Sulaj, the one Defendant who has been served and has appeared in the 

case. 

III. PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS 

 The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, 

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 21 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 64
4 

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some 

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a 

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1273 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. 

 Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” and “Objection No. 

2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an 

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the 

objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich LR 

72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, 

in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to 

Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without 

merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. 

Dated: April 7, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 21 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 65
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on April 7, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

2:14-cv-14350-APP Doc # 21 Filed 04/07/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 66