UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTT SYZAK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA BENSON, 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-10928

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MAY 25, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [47]

Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s May 25, 2018 report and

recommendation. (Dkt. # 47). On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection to the

magistrate judge's report. (Dkt. # 48). Having conducted a de novo review of the parts of

the Magistrate Judge's report to which specific objections have been filed, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff's objection and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation.

As noted by the magistrate judge, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to

Defendant's motion to dismiss and warned that failure to do so could result in sanctions,

including granting all or part of the relief requested by the moving party. (Dkt. # 44). 

Plaintiff failed to respond, and the Court ordered him to show cause why the Court should

not dismiss his complaint. (Dkt. # 46). The Court again warned that failure to respond to

the Order to Show Cause or file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss would result

in a recommendation that the motion be granted or that the case be dismissed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. Plaintiff failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause and again failed

to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the magistrate judge

recommends dismissing this case with prejudice. (Dkt. # 47). This Court agrees with the

magistrate judge that the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissing this case for failure

to prosecute. See id. at Pg ID 3-6; Wu v. T.W. Wang, Inc., 420 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir.

2005); Labreck v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, No. 11-10155, 2013 WL 511031, at *2 (E.D. Mich.

Jan. 25, 2013), adopted by No. 11-10155, 2013 WL 509964 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2013);

Croton v. Recker, No. 11-15433, 2012 WL 3888220, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 7, 2012); White

v. Bouchard, No. 05-73718, 2008 WL 2216281, at *5 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2008). Indeed,

Plaintiff does not object to the magistrate judge's conclusion. 

Rather, in his objection, Plaintiff merely asserts that he cannot prosecute this case or

respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss without assistance because he finds the issues

too complex, and that he has no money to hire a lawyer. However, as the magistrate judge

had already found in a previous order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's earlier motion to

appoint counsel, an order to which Plaintiff did not object to, it appears from reading the

complaint as well as Plaintiff's previous motions and his success in challenging a prior

report and recommendation, that the issues raised in Plaintiff's complaint are not of an

unduly complex nature, and that Plaintiff has an adequate understanding of the issues

involved in this case, is able to read and write in English, and has some familiarity with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The magistrate judge correctly noted that there is no

right to counsel in prisoner civil rights cases, and that the appointment of counsel in such

proceedings is justified only in exceptional circumstances. See Lavado v. Keohane, 992

F.2d 601, 606 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has pointed to no exceptional circumstance in this

2
case, which involves one Defendant and straightforward factual allegations. See Dkt. # 1

(alleging that Defendant Food Service Director forced Plaintiff to have sex with her several

times while Plaintiff was employed in the kitchen at the Macomb Correctional Facility, that

Plaintiff contracted a sexually transmitted disease as a result, and that Defendant

threatened to falsely accuse him of rape). Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiff's

objection.

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's objection and ACCEPTS

AND ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. It is ordered that

Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ordered that

Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 43) is hereby terminated as MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: June 19, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on June 19, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa Bartlett

Case Manager

3