United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
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.
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).
Plaintiff's July 5, 2017 amended complaint is the
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.
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.)
Defendants Aramark and Dolinski are the two remaining
Defendants in this case.
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.)
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.
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.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 ...