McQuin #863639 v. Nurkala et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ALEX BENJAMIN MCQUIN #863639,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARSHA NURKALA, et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 2:25-cv-18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 15, 2025, the Clerk mailed a copy of the October 14, 2025 Order on motions,
and a Report and Recommendation (ECF Nos. 27, 28) to Plaintiff. On November 10, 2025, the
Clerk mailed a copy of the November 7, 2025 Order Regarding Report and Recommendation, and
the November 10, 2025 Amended Case Management Order (ECF Nos. 31, 32) to Plaintiff. The
mailings were not deliverable because Plaintiff had been discharged from the MDOC and provided
no forwarding address. (ECF Nos. 30, 34.) The MDOC’s Offender Tracking Information System
confirms that Plaintiff was discharged on October 17, 2025.1
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
1 https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=863639 (last visited
12/12/2025).
Case 2:25-cv-00018-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 1
of 3

2
“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)
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, 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 Defendant’s 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.
Case 2:25-cv-00018-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 2
of 3

3
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.
Dated: December 12, 2025 /s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
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 2:25-cv-00018-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 35, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/12/25 Page 3
of 3