Krusell v. Leirstein et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES KRUSELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATHEW LEIRSTEIN, et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 1:25-cv-01268
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 11, 2025, the Clerk mailed a copy of the December 11, 2025 Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 15) to Plaintiff. The mailing was not deliverable because Plaintiff has
not provided the Court with an updated address (ECF No. 16 ).
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).
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)
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 1
of 3

2
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.” Similarly, the October 21, 2025
Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis notified Plaintiff that his failure to
“promptly notify the Court of any address change” would be grounds for “dismissal of the action
for lack of prosecution.” (ECF No. 4 at PageID.26.) As mentioned above, mail addressed to
Plaintiff has been returned because 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. Thus, Plaintiff
has been warned by the Court that dismissal of his claims might result from his failure to keep the
Court apprised of his current address. Regardless, this Recommendation will serve as an additional
warning and affords Plaintiff an opportunity to contest the recommendation that dismissal is
appropriate.
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 2
of 3

3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, I recommend that this action be dismissed 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.
Dated: January 7, 2026 /s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
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
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).
Case 1:25-cv-01268-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 3
of 3