United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ;
DISMISSING JOHN DOE DEFENDANT; DENYING REQUEST FOR 60-DAY
EXTENSION TO FILE A RESPONSE ; AND DISMISSING CASE WITH
J. TARNOW, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Darryl Dudley El, a pro se prisoner, brought claims
against the Michigan Department of Corrections
("MDOC"), MDOC officials, and the Michigan
Department of State Police, alleging violations of his 5th,
6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. At this time, an unnamed "John Doe" is
the only remaining defendant in this case.
August 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R) [Dkt. #89] advising the Court to
dismiss the John Doe defendant and terminate as moot
Plaintiffs Request for 60-Day Extension to File a Response
. Plaintiff filed an Objection  on August 25, 2017.
filed this lawsuit on May 8, 2014, over three years ago. On
June 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to
provide the name and address of the John Doe defendant so
that the U.S. Marshal could effectuate service. Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge's Order 
by the July 11, 2017 deadline.
12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause
 directing Plaintiff to explain, in writing, why this
matter should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m)
for failure to provide the correct name and address so that
service could be timely effectuated. The Magistrate Judge
warned Plaintiff that Failure to satisfactorily or timely
comply with this order will result in a recommendation that
the action against defendant "Fourteenth John Doe
Persons" should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m) and Local Rule 41.2.
(Dkt. 86 at 1-2).
response to the show cause order was due on July 19, 2017.
Rather than filing a response, Plaintiff requested a 60-day
extension of time to, in part, respond to the show cause
order and provide the Court with an address for the John Doe
claims that he is doing everything in his power to identify
"and bring to justice" the John Doe defendants.
Obj. at 3. Plaintiff also "disagree[s] with the
substances that the Magistrate attaches to the facts."
Id. at 4, 5. Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate
Judge is biased and that she must be relieved from this case.
Id. at 5.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), the Court has the power to sua
sponte dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or comply
with a court order. Steward v. City of
Jackson, 8 Fed.Appx. 294, 296 (6th Cir. 2001).
"The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order
to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases
and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District
Courts." link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
629-30 (1962). The Court "can dismiss an action for
noncompliance . . . if the behavior of the noncomplying party
rises to the level of a failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Tetro v.
Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC
Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 992 (6th Cir. 1999). The
Sixth Circuit considers the following factors in reviewing a
district court's decision to dismiss a case for failure
to prosecute or comply with a court order:
(1) whether the party's failure is due to wilfulness, 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 ...