Opinion
23-12434
07-09-2024
ARDELL HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. MILHOUSE, et al., Defendants.
Honorable Sean F. Cox Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 17)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ardell Hairston, a prisoner under the Michigan Department of Corrections' (MDOC) jurisdiction, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Hairston alleges that while he was at the Wayne County Jail, Defendants Unknown Milhouse, Piva, Martinez, Womack, and Leak-employees of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department-violated his rights by performing an invasive body cavity search. Id., PageID.3-4. The Honorable Sean F. Cox referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 10.
Multiple orders to Hairston were returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 13; ECF No. 14. In April 2024, defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the returned mail shows Hairston's failure to comply with Local Rule 11.2 and to prosecute his case. ECF No. 17. Hairston did not respond to their motion, so the Court ordered him to show cause in writing why his claims should not be dismissed for his violation of Local Rule 11.2 or for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 41.2. ECF No. 18, PageID.73. The Court also ordered Hairston to respond to the motion to dismiss, noting that failure to respond “may result in the Court recommending that this case be dismissed.” Id.
Hairston responded by filing a notice of change of address, stating that he is housed at Gus Harrison Correctional Facility and the Court never received his first notice of address change. ECF No. 19. Because Hairston has now complied with the local rules, the Court RECOMMENDS that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be DENIED AS MOOT.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this report and recommendation, any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Court's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). If a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived. Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). And only the specific objections to this report and recommendation are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this report and recommendation to which it pertains. Within 14 days after service of objections, any non-objecting party must file a response to the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page limitation. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.