1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DERRICK HUTCHINSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-11158 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

STERLING MANAGEMENT LTD., et al., 

 Defendants.

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JUNE 

29, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 26], (2) 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 41(b), AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 21]

 Plaintiff Derrick Hutchinson commenced this lawsuit against Defendants 

Sterling Management Ltd. and Lancaster Lakes LLC (collectively “Defendants”) 

in Oakland County Circuit Court and it was removed to this Court on March 27, 

2015. (ECF No. 1.) On December 29, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for 

summary judgment. (ECF No. 21.) The matter has been referred for all pretrial 

matters to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis. 

 On April 27, 2016, Magistrate Judge Davis issued a show cause order due to 

Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response to the motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 24.) The order required Plaintiff to show cause in writing, on or before 

4:15-cv-11158-LVP-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 09/13/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 298
2 

May 11, 2016, why the magistrate judge should not recommend that the complaint 

be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion. (Id.) Magistrate 

Judge Davis warned Plaintiff that his “failure to timely or adequately respond in 

writing to the Order to show cause or timely file a response to the motion would 

result in a recommendation that the motion be granted or that the entire matter be 

dismissed under Rule 41(b).” (Id. at Pg ID 217-18.) 

 When Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order, Magistrate Judge 

Davis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 29, 2016, 

recommending that the Court dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 26.) At 

the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis informs the parties that they 

must file any objections to the R&R within fourteen days. (Id. at Pg ID 268.) She 

further advises that the “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of 

any further right of appeal.” (Id., citations omitted). Defendants filed two 

objections to the R&R, requesting that the court: (1) grant Defendants’ unopposed 

motion for summary judgment or (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 41(b). (ECF No. 27.) 

 The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions 

reached by Magistrate Judge Davis. By failing to respond to Magistrate Judge 

Davis’s show cause order or Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff 

4:15-cv-11158-LVP-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 09/13/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 299
3 

has failed to prosecute this lawsuit and the action may be involuntarily dismissed 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). As set forth by Magistrate 

Judge Davis, the relevant factors favor dismissal as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute this action. (Id. at Pg ID 266.) This dismissal should be without 

prejudice given that Plaintiff was represented by counsel. The Court therefore 

adopts Magistrate Judge Davis’s June 29, 2016 Report and Recommendation. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(b) and that the pending motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 13, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, September 13, 2016, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-11158-LVP-SDD Doc # 28 Filed 09/13/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 300