UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES BLACK, # 775188, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-CV-13581 

vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

MICHAEL BOUCHARD, 

et al. 

 Defendants. 

____________________/ 

ORDER 

(1) ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE RECOMMENDATION 

CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

DATED MARCH 16, 2015 (Dkt. 36), (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

(Dkts. 21, 27) and MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. 32) AS MOOT 

 This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on March 16, 2015 (Dkt. 36). In the R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice in 

light of Plaintiff’s failure to (i) respond to the pending dispositive motions and show cause order, 

and (ii) provide an updated address at which documents may be sent. 

The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of 

the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not 

appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal 

conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those 

findings.”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 38 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 243
2 

(failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 

328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or 

omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v. 

Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and 

recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any 

standard.”). However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R 

for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no 

timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the 

R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error for the Magistrate 

Judge’s conclusion that dismissal is appropriate given Plaintiff’s failure to respond and to 

provide the Court with an up-to-date address. Accordingly, the Court accepts the 

recommendation in part. 

However, the Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice, rather than with 

prejudice, is appropriate. See Muncy v. G.C.R., Inc., 110 Fed. App’x 552, 556 (6th Cir. 2004) 

(“[T]he sanction of dismissal without prejudice is a comparatively lenient sanction . . . because 

the dismissed party is ultimately not irrevocably deprived of his day in court.” (emphasis 

removed)); Carpenter v. City of Flint, 723 F.3d 700, 709 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that lesser 

sanctions can include “levying a fine, barring counsel from participating in oral argument, or any 

other disciplinary action, even dismissal without prejudice” (brackets, quotation marks, and 

citation omitted)). This is particularly true given that Plaintiff’s failure to respond may be due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court with an updated address —which would be consistent with 

the fact that nearly all of the recent filings — including the show cause order and the R&R — 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 38 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 244
3 

have been returned as undeliverable. See Labreck v. Stephenson, No. 14-cv-12025, 2014 WL 

7273586, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2014) (dismissing case without prejudice due to 

plaintiff’s failure to provide an up-to-date address to the court); Sango v. Johnson, No. 13-cv12808, 2013 WL 4614257, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2013) (same); Brown v. White, No. 09-

cv-12902, 2010 WL 1780954, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2010) (same); see also E.D. Mich. LR 

11.2 (warning that failure to keep the Court informed of address changes may result in 

dismissal); Notice Regarding Parties’ Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes (Dkt. 

3) (same). 

Accordingly, the Court accepts in part and rejects in part the R&R (Dkt. 36). The Court 

dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. The Court also denies Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss (Dkts. 21, 27) and motion to compel (Dkt. 32) as moot. The Court will enter a judgment 

in favor of Defendants contemporaneously with this decision. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 14, 2015 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

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 April 14, 2015. 

 s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13581-MAG-DRG Doc # 38 Filed 04/14/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 245