United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Brown, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Oakland County Jail, Defendant, represented by David N.
Asmar, Oakland County Corporation Counsel & Mary M. Mara,
Oakland County Corporation Counsel.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
October 10, 2014, Plaintiff Ryan Brown, an inmate in the
custody of the Oakland County Jail, filed a pro se
civil complaint against the Oakland County Jail. Before the
Court is the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Prosecute [Doc. #19], which has been referred for a Report
and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1)(B). For the
reasons discussed below, I recommend that the motion be
handwritten complaint [Doc. #1], Mr. Brown alleges that
following an attempted assault by another inmate, Oakland
County Deputies ordered him and other inmates in the cell to
get on their bunks. Mr. Brown did so, but the Deputies pulled
him off of the bunk and dropped him face-first on the
concrete floor. He alleges that they also slammed the right
side of his face on the floor, and that they dislocated his
shoulder when carrying him out of the cell. In addition to
the dislocated shoulder, he claims injuries to his chest and
back, his left eye socket, and the side of his head. He
further alleges that he was denied medical treatment for his
injuries. On January 30, 2015, Defendant filed an answer to
complaint, with affirmative defenses [Doc. #14].
motion to dismiss, Defendant's counsel states that on
October 7, 2015, he served interrogatories and requests for
production of documents on Mr. Brown by mail, but that he has
received no responses. The docket entries do not show that
the Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery.
responses to this motion [Doc. #21, #23, and #24], Mr. Brown
states that owing to his status as an inmate, he has been
stymied in his efforts to obtain documents, including his
medical records, from the jail administration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) and Rule 41.2 of the Local
Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan. Mulbah v.
Detroit Board of Education, 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th
Cir.2001). Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) provides:
"(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Effect Thereof. For failure
of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules
or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of
an action or of any claim against the defendant. Unless the
court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a
dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not
provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a
party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the
case of a pro se litigant, "the Court must take
into consideration the difficulties an individual faces in
bringing forward their case without the benefit of legal
representation." Bunting v. Hansen, 2007 WL
1582236, *2 (E.D.Mich.2007). Nonetheless, because defendants
are entitled "to a fair and timely resolution of the
litigation... pro se litigants are not to be
accorded any special consideration when they fail to adhere
to readily-comprehended court deadlines." Id .;
Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir.1991).
determining whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to
prosecute, the Court generally looks to four factors for
guidance: (1) whether the party's failure is due to
willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary
was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3)
whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to
cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less
drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal
was ordered. Knoll v. American Telephone & Telegraph