Abram v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al, No. 5:2014cv11431 - Document 61 (E.D. Mich. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopting 59 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Abram v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al Doc. 61 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Michael Abram, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 14-cv-11431 Hon. Judith E. Levy Mag. Judge David R. Grand Corizon Health, Inc., et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION [59] Plaintiff Michael Abram, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 complaint against several defendants on April 3, 2014. (See Dkt. 1.) The Court directed the U.S. Marshal Service to serve a copy of the complaint to each defendant at the address provided by plaintiff. (See Dkt. 5.) On September 11, 2015, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiff to provide the full name and address of the only two defendants left in this case—defendant “Commins” and defendant “Jan Doe”—so that summonses could be issued and service effectuated. (See Dkt. 57.). Dockets.Justia.com The Court’s order was returned undeliverable, (see Dkt. 58), and defendants Commins and Doe remain unserved. On October 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (See Dkt. 59.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge notes that mail sent to plaintiff has been returned undeliverable because plaintiff apparently failed to notify the Court of a change in address. (See id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff was informed of his obligation to do so at the time the case was filed. (See id.) Indeed, plaintiff changed his address once before, and the Court, on its own initiative, obtained plaintiff’s address and was able to resume communication. (See id. at 3; Dkt. 33.) But the Court has once again lost contact with plaintiff. (See Dkt. 59 at 3.) Relatedly, plaintiff has not filed any documents since October 2014. (See id.) No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). The 2 failure to object also relieves this Court from its duty to review this matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The Court has nonetheless thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Commins and Doe are dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. There are no remaining defendants, and thus the case is dismissed. Dated: December 16, 2015 Ann Arbor, Michigan s/Judith E. Levy JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 16, 2015. s/Felicia M. Moses FELICIA M. MOSES Case Manager 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
