Darryl Dominic Woodford and Darlene Anita Woodford v. Penny Marie Julia Woodford

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

DARRYL DOMINIC Case No. 24-10166 WOODFORD and DARLENE ANITA WOODFORD, F. Kay Behm United States District Judge Plaintiff, v. Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge PENNY MARIE JULIA WOODFORD, Defendants. ____________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENATION TO DISMISSS DEFENDANT WITHOUT PREJUDICE Though this case is nearly two-years old, service of process continues to be a problem. The Court has expended considerable effort to effect service of process on Defendant Penny Marie Julia Woodford. (ECF Nos. 11, 18, 29, 31, 36). Thus far, attempts to serve Defendant have been unsuccessful. Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause, in writing, why the undersigned should not recommend that Defendant be dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process on Defendant. (ECF No. 38). Plaintiffs’ response was due on December 10, 2025. Alternatively, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide a new, accurate mailing address. The Court also warned that failure to timely or adequately respond would result in a recommendation to dismiss Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiffs have not filed a response as ordered as of this writing.

As Plaintiffs are aware, Rule 4(m) requires the Court to dismiss, without prejudice, any defendant who remains unserved within 90 days of filing of the complaint unless there is good cause not to do so. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant Penny Marie Julia Woodford be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). 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., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 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: December 17, 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 December 17, 2025.

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