Walker #720647 v. Hardenberg et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMAR WALKER #720647,
Plaintiff,
v.
KELLY HARDENBURGH, et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
Case No. 1:24-cv-726
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 26, 2026, Defendants filed a Motion to Extend Amended Case Management
Order Deadlines. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff paroled from the Michigan Department of Corrections
on October 14, 2025. (ECF No. 33-2, PageID.186.) Prior to being paroled, Plaintiff refused “all
mail from the attorney general’s office on this matter.” (ECF No. 33, PageID.180; ECF No. 33-3.)
Additionally, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address.
For the reasons discussed below, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b), and W.D. Mich. LCivR 41.1, I recommend that the present action be dismissed for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
As the United States Supreme Court long ago recognized, “[t]he authority of a federal trial
court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot
seriously be doubted.” Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). This authority “is
necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid
congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Id. at 629-30. Failure by a plaintiff to prosecute
constitutes grounds to dismiss the complaint or any particular claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Case 1:24-cv-00726-JMB-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 1
of 3

2
When examining whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate, the Court must
consider the following factors: (1) whether the party’s failure to cooperate is due to willfulness,
bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary is prejudiced by the party’s dilatory conduct; (3)
whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4)
whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered. See Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac,
Oldsmobile, Buick, and GMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 992 (6th Cir. 1999).
Based on these factors, I recommend that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. Local Rule of
Civil Procedure 41.1 provides that “[f]ailure of a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of a current
address shall be grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution.” As mentioned above, Plaintiff has
not provided the Court with his correct mailing address. This is a willful failure by Plaintiff that
prejudices Defendants’ ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims and hinders the Court’s ability
to effectively manage its docket. While Plaintiff has not previously been warned by the Court that
dismissal of his claims might result from his failure to comply with the Court’s rule, this
Recommendation will serve as a warning and affords Plaintiff an opportunity to contest the
recommendation that dismissal is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, I recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice
for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Timely objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be
considered Plaintiff’s opportunity to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed.
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court
within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file
Case 1:24-cv-00726-JMB-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 2
of 3

3
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Dated: January 27, 2026 /s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00726-JMB-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/27/26 Page 3
of 3