Bishop v. Palmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SHAMEKA BISHOP, Case No. 25-10518 Plaintiff, Honorable Brandy R. McMillion Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford v. JASON PALMER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR ALTERNATE SERVICE (ECF NOS. 21, 22)

Plaintiff Shameka Bishop sues defendants for alleged violations of her rights under federal and state laws. ECF No. 12. The Honorable Brandy R. McMillion referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 24.

Bishop moves for alternate service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e); for defense counsel to clarify whether they represent defendants in their individual or official capacities; and to substitute a dead defendant with the State of Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency for deceased defendant Emanuel Lewis under Rule 25(a)(1). ECF No. 21; ECF No 21-1; ECF No. 22. The Court told Bishop during a status conference on March 19, 2025, that it would deny her motions. First, Bishop’s request for alternate service lacks merit because defendants’ attorneys have entered appearances for them. See ECF No. 8; ECF No. 10; ECF No. 16; ECF No. 18. Bishops’ other requests appear to be frivolous for the reasons stated during the status conference and she failed to show otherwise. Her mere citation to procedural rules is not enough. “[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones." McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up).

Thus, Bishop’s motions (ECF. Nos. 21, 22) are DENIED. The Court encourages Bishop to seek assistance from this district’s pro se clinic by calling (313) 234-2690. And the Court warns Bishop that her requests for information from defendants must be made under the discovery rules (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37), and she cannot request discovery until a scheduling order has been entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Elizabeth A. Stafford ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD United States Magistrate Judge Dated: March 20, 2025 NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. “When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 20, 2025.

s/Davon Allen DAVON ALLEN Case Manager