UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SAMUEL R. JONES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-12527

Honorable George Caram Steeh

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

WAYNE COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS 

SUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On July 15, 2015, Samuel R. Jones filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wayne County Jail and several 

Wayne County Jail and/or Sheriff’s Department officials. [R. 1]. On 

November 6, 2015, the Court dismissed all but the following four 

defendants from this action: Sergeant Cadella and Deputies K. Moore, R. 

Thorpe and Koslowski.1

 [R. 6]. Subsequently, the Honorable George 

Caram Steeh referred the case to the undersigned to resolve all pretrial 

matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). [R. 8]. 

 

1 In the complaint, Jones refers to these defendants by last name only or by 

first initial and last name.

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 67
2

On January 6, 2016, Jones filed a motion for summary judgment. [R. 

13]. The Court entered an order, dated March 24, 2016, requiring 

defendants to respond to the motion, and it mailed that order to Jones at 

the last address provided, Wayne County Jail, 570 Clinton Street, Detroit, 

Michigan. [R. 20]. However, the mail to Jones was returned as 

undeliverable. [R. 22]. After waiting several weeks, the Court entered a 

notice reminding Jones of his responsibility under E.D. Mich. LR 11.2 to 

notify the Court of any change in address, and that failure to do so may 

result in dismissal of the case.2

 [R. 23]. The Court mailed the notice to 

Jones at his last provided address, but it was returned as undeliverable. 

[R. 24]. To date, Jones has not provided the Court with his current 

address, in violation of LR 11.2. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides:

If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or 

a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or 

any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states 

otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) ... operates as 

an adjudication on the merits.

 

2 The same notice was given at the outset of this litigation. [See R. 2].

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 68
3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “Neither the permissive language of [Rule 41(b)] –

which merely authorizes a motion by the defendant – nor its policy requires 

us to conclude that it was the purpose of the Rule to abrogate the power of 

courts, acting on their own initiative, to clear their calendars of cases that 

have remained dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the 

parties seeking relief.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962). 

Indeed, Rule 41(b) authorizes the Court “to dismiss an action for failure of a 

plaintiff to prosecute the claim or to comply with the Rules or any order of 

the court.” Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 736 (6th 

Cir.2008); see also Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and 

GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 991 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[D]istrict courts 

possess broad discretion to sanction parties for failing to comply with 

procedural requirements.”). This Court’s local rules further provide that 

when “the parties have taken no action for a reasonable time, the court 

may, on its own motion after reasonable notice or an application of a party, 

enter an order dismissing ... the case unless good cause is shown.” E.D. 

Mich. LR 41.2.

Here, Jones’s failure to notify the Court of his change of address 

makes it impossible for this case to proceed. Accordingly, dismissal for 

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 69
4

lack of prosecution is warranted. In light of Jones being an inmate 

proceeding pro se, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that Jones’s motion for summary 

judgment be deemed MOOT.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: May 12, 2016

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 70
5

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

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 May 12, 2016.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

2:15-cv-12527-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 05/12/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 71