1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

THEODORE VISNER,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 14-14610

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

ISABELLA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 41(b) OF THE

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

I. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the case be sua sponte DISMISSED for want of 

prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. REPORT

A. Background

This case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters on December 19, 2014. 

(Doc. 2.) Plaintiff filed this action on December 5, 2014. (Doc. 1.) There is no indication that 

Plaintiff attempted to serve or actually served any of the Defendants; on May 15, 2015, this 

Court issued a sua sponte order to show cause why Plaintiff’s case should not be dismissed for 

want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 4.) 

Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. 

1:14-cv-14610-TLL-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 67
2

B. Discussion

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants federal courts the authority to 

dismiss a case if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “This measure is available to the district court as a tool to effect 

‘management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts 

[and] opposing parties.’” Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 

(6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir. 1984)). 

“Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but

it may also sua sponte dismiss an action whenever necessary to ‘achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.’” Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 

(5th Cir. 1980) (quoting Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). When deciding 

whether to dismiss a case for want of prosecution, courts are guided by competing concerns:

On the one hand, there is the court’s need to manage its docket, the public’s 

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to a 

defendant because the plaintiff has failed to actively pursue its claims. . . . On the 

other hand is the policy which favors disposition of cases on their merits.

Little v. Yeutter, 984 F.2d 160, 162 (6th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to actively pursue the litigation initiated against the 

Defendants and failed to respond to a court order. I therefore find that the Court’s need to 

manage its docket, the public’s interest in the timely resolution of litigation, and the risk of 

prejudice from Plaintiff’s failure to actively pursue his claims outweighs the policy favoring a 

disposition of the cases on its merits, and thus recommend that the case be sua sponte 

dismissed as against all Defendants for failure to prosecute.

1:14-cv-14610-TLL-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 68
3

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days 

after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file 

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may 

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a 

waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 

435 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United 

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some 

objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to 

this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 

401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th 

Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served 

upon this magistrate judge. 

Date: June 30, 2015 S/ patricia t. morris

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed this date through 

the Court’s CM/ECF system which delivers a copy to all counsel of record. A copy was also 

sent via First Class mail to Theodore Visner at P.O. Box 277, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858.

Date: June 30, 2015 By s/Kristen Krawczyk 

 Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Morris

1:14-cv-14610-TLL-PTM Doc # 5 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 69