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.

Giles v. Bouchard

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

March 12, 2019

KEVIN LA'VON GILES, Plaintiff
v.
MICHAEL BOUCHARD, CURTIS CHILDS, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., and ANNA DOLINSKI, Defendants.

          Gershwin A. Drain District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE 22) AND DEFENDANTS ARAMARK AND DOLINSKI'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 44)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint (DE 22) as to Defendants Aramark and Dolinski for Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court apprised of his address, and, accordingly, should deem moot Defendants Aramark and Dolinski's combined motion to dismiss (DE 44).

         II. REPORT

         A. Background

         1. Plaintiff's July 5, 2017 amended complaint is the operative pleading.

         On April 25, 2016 and May 16, 2016, Plaintiff was sentenced in two Oakland County Circuit Court cases. Nos. 2016-258318-FH, 2016-258460-FH. On January 17, 2017, while located at the Oakland County Jail (OCJ) in Pontiac, Michigan, Plaintiff filed two cases in this Court: (1) No. 2:17-cv-10153-GAD-APP and (2) No. 2:17-cv-10154-GAD-RSW. In each case, Plaintiff took issue with the conditions of confinement at the OCJ. (DEs 1 at 5-7.) And in each case, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs and entered an order directing service without prepayment of costs and authorizing the U.S. Marshal to collect costs after service is made.

         On June 14, 2017, Judge Drain entered an order consolidating these cases, dismissing the latter case, providing that all future documents should be filed in the instant case, and requiring an amended complaint. (DE 20.) Consequently, on June 28, 2017, the Court terminated Defendant Bouchard's March 20, 2017 motion to dismiss (DE 16) and Plaintiff's April 4, 2017 motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DE 17). On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against six defendants: (1) Michael Bouchard, (2) Curtis Childs, (3) John Doe 1, (4) John Doe 2, (5) Aramark Correctional Services, Inc., and (6) Anna Dolinski. (DE 22.)

         2. Defendants Aramark and Dolinski are the two remaining Defendants in this case.

         On March 28, 2018, Judge Drain entered an opinion and order sustaining Defendants' objection to my report and recommendation and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (DE 32.) The case remained open as to Defendants Aramark and Dolinski. (DEs 33-34.)

         The Court had earlier granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (DEs 2-3; see also DE 4.) In April 2018, the Court facilitated service of the complaint upon Aramark and Dolinski. (DEs 35-36.) They appeared on June 25, 2018. (DEs 37-41.) On July 10, 2018, I entered a text-only order setting the discovery deadline for October 31, 2018 and the dispositive motion deadline for November 30, 2018.

         B. Pending Matter

         Judge Drain has referred this case to me for pretrial matters. Currently before the Court is Defendants Aramark and Dolinski's combined motion to dismiss. (DE 44.) The Court's November 19, 2018 order stated that Plaintiff's response was due on or before December 19, 2018. (DE 45.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response.

         C. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 ...


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.