Coward v. Hall

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
AVIS COWARD, 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-01585
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
DOUGLAS HALL,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) addresses Plaintiff Avis Coward’s
failure to comply with the January 22, 2026, order requiring him to provide the Court
with the address of Defendant within 28 days. 	ECF No. 9. 	Without the proper
address, the U.S. Marshals Service cannot serve Defendant with a summons and
complaint. 	Plaintiff has not complied with that order.
“Although Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and is
relieved of his burden to serve process, he is nonetheless obligated to take “reasonable
steps . . . to identify for the court the defendants named in the complaint.” Byrd v.
Stone. 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996). 	This includes providing addresses for
service. 	Williams v. McLemore, 10 F. App’x 241, 243 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Lee v.
Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff bears the responsibility for
providing defendants’ proper addresses for Marshal's service). “Courts have upheld
the dismissal of a pro se prisoner’s . . . complaint, where the plaintiff failed to provide
the district court with the names and addresses of all of the defendants that the
Case 1:25-cv-01585-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 1
of 3

2
plaintiff was filing suit against.” Herbert v. Roark, No. 05-74754, 2006 WL 1284695,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2006) (citing Jaakkola v. Snyder, No. 89-1330, 1989 WL
137855, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 1989)).
Here, the U.S. Marshal Service (USMS) attempted to serve Defendant Douglas
Hall at a known address on W. Michigan Ave., Lansing, MI. 	ECF No. 8. 	On Jan.
8, 2026, the USMS reported that it was unable to locate Defendant and that the
Lansing Township Police Department refused service, explaining that Defendant was
no longer there. 	Id. 	On Jan. 22, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide an
address where Defendant could be served within 28 days. 	ECF No. 9.
A review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has not provided an address
where Defendant could be served. 	Absent the correct address for service from
Plaintiff, the Court is authorized to dismiss the action without prejudice for failure
to effect service.
Accordingly, 	I 	recommend 	that 	this 	action 	be 	DISMISSED 	without
prejudice.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:25-cv-01585-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Dated: 	March 6, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01585-JMB-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/06/26 Page 3
of 3