Christopher Charles Tillison v. Euell, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER CHARLES TILLISON, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-cv-10196 v. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH EUELL, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ OPINION & ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 33) AND (2) DISMISSING ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MARGARET EUELL The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, issued on April 21, 2025 (Dkt. 33). In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Christopher Charles Tillison’s claims against Defendant Margret Euell. On May 9, 2025, Tillison filed an objection to the R&R (Dkt. 34).1 For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the R&R (Dkt. 33) and dismisses all claims against Euell.2 I. BACKGROUND The full relevant factual background is set forth in the R&R. See R. & R. at 1–3. Tillison’s claims stem from an assault at Saginaw Correctional Facility that Officer Euell and other employees allegedly permitted. On June 11, 2024, the Court directed the U.S. Marshals to serve completed service on Defendants at the addresses Tillison had provided. Service Order (Dkt. 11).

1 Euell did not respond to the objection.

2 Because oral argument will not aid the Court’s decisional process, the issue before the Court will be decided based on the parties’ briefing. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

However, there was no indication on the docket that Euell had been properly served with process despite the fact that more than a year had passed since Tillison filed the case. On February 9, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Tillison to show cause as to why the case against Euell should not be dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to timely accomplish service. Show Cause Order at PageID.114 (Dkt. 29). Tillison has not filed a response to the show cause order, and there is still no indication on the docket that Euell has been properly served. Consequently, the magistrate judge recommended that Tillison’s claims against Euell be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) due to Tillison’s failure to timely complete service, as well as his failure to comply with the Court’s order to show cause. R. & R. at 5.

Tillison filed four objections, none of which is persuasive.

II. ANALYSIS The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 166 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” (punctuation modified)).

Tillison’s first objection is that that the marshal was unable to properly serve Euell because Tillison never received Euell’s home address. Obj. at 1. Tillison’s second objection is that “unknown employees” at the Carson City Correctional Facility have impeded his ability to prosecute the case by transferring him, placing him on “non-bond” segregation on several occasions, and have “taken or misplaced all of his legal documents and expedited legal mail forms.” Id. at 2–3. Both of these objections miss the mark because neither addresses the magistrate judge’s application of Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(b) or Tillison’s failure to respond to the show cause order.

Tillison’s third and fourth objections are not objections so much as requests. In his third objection, Tillison requests a temporary restraining order to require “all employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, not to interfere in, encourage interference of, or commit any act intended to impede the prosecution of this case.” Id. at 3. In his fourth objection he requests that the Court “reissue the order for the U.S. Marshal to re-execute service of process, and to file the proper affidavit,” or in the alternative, to “hold that service of process was completed on Defendant Margaret Euell, and allow this case to proceed.” Id. The Court rejects Tillison’s third and fourth objections because they are requests rather than objections.

The Court finds that Tillison’s objections are unpersuasive and adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court: (i) adopts the recommendation in the R&R and (ii) dismisses all claims against Euell.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2026 s/Mark A. Goldsmith Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First-Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 9, 2026.

s/Joseph Heacox JOSEPH HEACOX Case Manager