Nelson v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DYLAN DAVID NELSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-13220 v. Hon. Brandy R. McMillion Mag. Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. JOHN DOE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS AND 2, UNKNOWN INSPECTOR, AND UNKNOWN WARDEN, Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 15) AND DISMISSING THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 4(m) Plaintiff Dylan David Nelson (“Nelson”) brought this pro se civil action against four John Doe Defendants (Officer 1, Officer 2, Unknown Inspector and Unknown Warden) (collectively, “Defendants”). See generally ECF No. 1. The undersigned referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. ECF No. 12. The Court ordered Nelson to identify the Defendants by May 9, 2025, so that the United States Marshal could serve the Defendants. ECF No. 13, PageID.45-46.

When Nelson failed to do so, the Court issued an Order for Nelson to show cause why the case should not be dismissed; and a response was due by July 1, 2025. ECF No 14. Nelson failed to respond to the Show Cause Order or identify the Defendants for service. Consequently, on July 9, 2025, Magistrate Judge Ivy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the undersigned dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See ECF No. 15, PageID.52. At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek review of his recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court within 14 days of service of the R&R. Id. at PageID.53.

As of the date of this order, August 5, 2025—27 days since the Magistrate Judge filed the R&R—none of the parties have filed objections to the R&R or contacted the Court to ask for more time to file objections. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 957- (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a party’s failure to timely object to a report and recommendation allows a court to accept the recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any further right to appeal. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to timely file objections to an R&R).

Accordingly, because no objections to the R&R have been filed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of dismissal is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

This is a final order that closes the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2025 s/Brandy R. McMillion Detroit, Michigan HON. BRANDY R. MCMILLION United States District Judge