1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NANCI LEE McCRORY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-12306 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MHT HOUSING, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #36) 

AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (ECF #1) 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 On June 25, 2015, Plaintiff Nanci Lee McCrory (“McCrory”) filed this 

action against Defendants MHT Housing, Inc., Continental Management, LLC, 

and Dauner Haus III/MHT Limited Dividend Housing Association, LLC 

(collectively, “Defendants”). McCrory claims that the Defendants violated both 

state and federal law when they refused to make her apartment building accessible 

to individuals, like McCrory, who are disabled and retaliated against her for 

making requests for accommodations due to her disability. (See Compl., ECF #1 at 

1-2, Pg. ID 1-2.) 

 On July 25, 2016, McCrory’s pro bono counsel from the Wayne State 

University Disability Law Clinic filed a motion to withdraw as her attorneys (the 

“Motion for Withdrawal”). (See ECF #34.) The Court scheduled a hearing on the 

2:15-cv-12306-MFL-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 11/10/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 259
2 

Motion for Withdrawal and ordered McCrory to personally appear at that hearing. 

(See ECF #34.) 

 The Court held the hearing on August 3, 2016. (See Dkt.) As ordered, 

McCrory personally appeared at that proceeding. At the hearing, the Court granted 

the Motion for Withdrawal and told McCrory, on the record, that she had until 

September 20, 2016, to either (1) retain new counsel or (2) inform the Court that 

she planned to proceed in this action as her own attorney. The Court then issued 

and served upon McCrory a written order that repeated these requirements (the 

“Order”). (See ECF #35.) In the Order, the Court expressly informed McCrory 

that “[i]f, by the close of business on September 20, 2016, the Court [had] neither 

receive[d] an Appearance from new counsel nor a letter from [McCrory indicating 

that she wished to represent herself in this action], the Court [would] presume that 

[she] no longer wishe[d] to proceed with the action and [would] dismiss this action 

without prejudice.” (Id. at 2, Pg. ID 251.) 

 On September 16, 2016, McCrory informed the Court by letter that while 

she wanted to continue her action against the Defendants, she had been unable to 

find new counsel and did not wish to represent herself. (See ECF #36-2 at 2, Pg. ID 

258.) On October 10, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action based 

on McCrory’s failure to comply with the Order and either retain a new attorney or 

agree to represent herself (the “Motion to Dismiss”). (See ECF #36.) 

2:15-cv-12306-MFL-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 11/10/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 260
3 

McCrory has not filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. Nor has she 

otherwise informed the Court that she has retained new counsel or has decided to 

represent herself. Because McCrory does not have a lawyer and has not agreed to 

represent herself, the Motion to Dismiss IS GRANTED and McCrory’s Complaint 

IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: November 10, 2016 

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

and/or counsel of record on November 10, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

 

1

 The Court recognizes that it could appoint new counsel for McCrory. It declines 

to do so. Attorneys David R. Moss (“Moss”) and Lawrence C. Mann (“Mann”) of 

the Wayne State University Law School Disability Law Clinic initially represented 

McCrory in this action pro bono. Attorneys Moss and Mann were vigorous 

advocates for McCrory and worked diligently on her behalf. They moved to 

withdraw as her counsel only after she “failed substantially to fulfill her obligation 

to cooperate with [her] counsel in the handling of this matter, despite repeated 

warnings that counsel would withdraw if [she] did not cooperate.” (Mot. for 

Withdrawal at 3-4, ECF #33 at 3-4, Pg. ID 238-39.) McCrory denied that she was 

uncooperative, but the Court credits Moss and Mann’s version of events. Given 

the reasons for the breakdown between McCrory and her previous pro bono 

counsel, the Court does not believe it would be appropriate to appoint a new 

lawyer to represent McCrory. 

2:15-cv-12306-MFL-RSW Doc # 37 Filed 11/10/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 261