Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dudley v. Makowski

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 28, 2017

Darryl Dudley El, Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD MAKOWSKI, ET AL., Defendants.

          STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [89]; DISMISSING JOHN DOE DEFENDANT; DENYING REQUEST FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE A RESPONSE [87]; AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

          ARTHUR J. TARNOW, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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[1] in this case.

         On 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 [87]. Plaintiff filed an Objection [90] on August 25, 2017.

         Procedural Background

         Plaintiff 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 [83] by the July 11, 2017 deadline.

         On July 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause [86] 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).

         Plaintiffs 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 defendant.

         Analysis

         Plaintiff 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.

         Pursuant 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.