UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DYLAN DAVID NELSON, Case No. 24-13220 Plaintiff, v. Brandy R. McMillion United States District Judge JOHN DOE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS 1 and 2, UNKNOWN Curtis Ivy, Jr. INSPECTOR, and UNKNOWN United States Magistrate Judge WARDEN, Defendants. ____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: RULE 4(m) DISMISSAL

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dylan David Nelson initiated this pro se lawsuit against four John Doe Defendants on December 3, 2024. (ECF No. 1). Because Plaintiff did not identify the Defendants, the United States Marshals Service could not serve the summons and complaint. Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff to identify each Defendant’s name by May 9, 2025. (ECF No. 13, PageID.45-46). The Court also warned Plaintiff that failure to identify Defendants would result in an Order to show cause why the unnamed Doe Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Id. at PageID.46). Plaintiff did not identify the Defendants as ordered. Accordingly, the Court filed an order to show cause why the Doe Defendants should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff’s response was due on or before July 1, 2025. (Id. at PageID.49). Alternatively, the Court instructed Plaintiff to identify

the Doe Defendants so the Marshals Service could effectuate service of process. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to do either would result in a recommendation that all four John Doe Defendants be dismissed under Rule 4(m).

As of this writing, Plaintiff has not filed a response or identified any of the Defendants. Rule 4(m) states that the Court must dismiss, without prejudice, any defendant who is not served within ninety days of filing the complaint and after

notice to the Plaintiff. More than ninety days have passed since Plaintiff filed his complaint in December 2024. And the Court has warned Plaintiff that failure to identify the Doe Defendants would result in a recommendation to dismiss under

Rule 4(m). As Plaintiff has failed to identify the four John Doe Defendants, they all remain unserved. And Plaintiff provided no reason why the Defendants should not be dismissed without prejudice. The undersigned therefore recommends that they be dismissed without prejudice.

II. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that all four John Doe Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to

Rule 4(m). The parties here may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,

, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Loc. 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge. Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No.

2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d).

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule

without awaiting the response. Date: July 9, 2025 s/Curtis Ivy, Jr. Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

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 or by First Class U.S. mail on July 9, 2025.

s/Sara Krause Case Manager (810) 341-7850