Parr v. Spurling ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Kamiryn Parr, Plaintiff, Case No. 21-12166 v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Ken Spurling, Katherine Cody, Michael Hoffman, Rachel Marie Mag. Judge David R. Grand Pierce, Anthony Turner, Rose LNU, and Dollar General, Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [9] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David Grand’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 9) recommending that the Court dismiss pro se Plaintiff Kamiryn Parr’s complaint against the Defendants Ken Spurling, Katherine Cody, Michael Hoffman, Rachel Marie Pierce, Anthony Turner, Rose LNU, and Dollar General (ECF No. 1). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, Judge Grand recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants be dismissed without prejudice because she failed to serve Defendants or otherwise complete and present to the Clerk’s Office documents necessary to effect service in this case. (See ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff also did not respond to the May 31, 2022 Order to Show Cause. (Id.) The parties were required to file specific written objections to the R&R, if any, within fourteen days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly, the R&R (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 22, 2022 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 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 July 22, 2022. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager 1 By failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have forfeited any further right of appeal. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019).