Urban v. GM Truck Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
On September 30, 2025, Justin Cameron Urban sued his former employer GM
Truck Group for alleged employment discrimination. (ECF No. 1.) Along with his
complaint, Urban filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs.
(ECF No. 2.) But there were several deficiencies in Urban’s filings—which the Court
instructed Urban to rectify by November 5, 2025. (ECF No. 5.)
First, Urban’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was incomplete. As the
Court explained, “[t]he bottom of the first page is cut off, and the second page of the
two-page form is missing. The Court is unable to assess Urban’s eligibility for in
forma pauperis status without a complete application.” (ECF No. 5, PageID.14.) The
Court thus denied Urban’s application without prejudice, directed him to “either (1)
pay the $405.00 civil filing fee in full or (2) file a renewed application to proceed
without prepayment” by November 5, 2025, and warned that “[f]ailure to either pay
the fee or submit a renewed, complete application by November 5 may result in
dismissal of Urban’s complaint.” (Id.)
JUSTIN CAMERON URBAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GM TRUCK GROUP,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-13096
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT [1]
Case 2:25-cv-13096-LJM-CI ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Second, Urban’s complaint did not allow the Court to “reasonably infer that
Urban has exhausted his administrative remedies as required under the ADA and
Title VII.” (Id. at PageID.16.) As the Court explained, “before a plaintiff can file an
employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII or the ADA, he must first exhaust
his administrative remedies as required under these statutes. . . . Administrative
exhaustion thus entails two steps: (1) the timely filing of a charge of discrimination
and (2) the receipt of a notice of the right to sue.” (Id. at PageID.15 (citing 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e-5(e)(1), 2000e-5(f)(1), 12117(a); Granderson v. Univ. of Mich., 211 F. App’x
398, 400 (6th Cir. 2006)).) Because Urban “d[id] not say that he received a notice of
his right to sue from [the EEOC or relevant state agency] or attach a such a notice to
his complaint” (id.), the Court directed Urban to show cause in writing, also by
November 	5, 	2025, 	“why 	this 	case 	should 	not 	be 	dismissed 	under 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to exhaust his ADA and Title VII administrative remedies”
and warned that “[a] failure to file a show-cause response by November 5, or an
inadequate show-cause response, may result in dismissal of this case” (id. at
PageID.18; see id. (instructing that Urban’s “show cause response must include a copy
of the right-to-sue letter he received from the EEOC or relevant state agency”)); see
also Blount v. Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar, No. 24-6137, 2025 U.S. App.
LEXIS 20888, at *3 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2025) (recognizing that, although exhaustion
requirement is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule that typically the defendant
must raise as an affirmative defense, the court could raise it sua sponte on initial
Case 2:25-cv-13096-LJM-CI ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

3
screening under § 1915(e)(2) where it gave plaintiff notice and an opportunity to
respond).
Urban’s deadline has passed without any response. Thus, he has not fixed the
deficiencies 	identified 	by 	the 	Court 	and 	has 	failed 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	filing
requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). He has also failed to comply with the Court’s
order on two fronts—by neither (1) explaining “why this case should not be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to exhaust his ADA and Title VII
administrative remedies” nor (2) “pay[ing] the [filing] fee or submit[ting] a renewed,
complete application.” (ECF No. 5, PageID.18.)
The Court thus DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Urban’s case. See Rogers
v. City of Warren, 302 F. App’x 371, 375 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing district courts’
“sources of authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute”: Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(f), “which permits dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) when a
party or its attorney fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference”; Rule
41(b), “which permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action if a plaintiff fails to
prosecute his case or to comply with a court order”; and “the court’s inherent power
to ‘protect the due and orderly administration of justice, and maintain the authority
and dignity of the court” (citation modified)); see also Jones v. Windsor Mold Grp., No.
24-11676, 2024 WL 3761261, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2024) (dismissing pro se
plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for
failure to comply with show cause order and failure to exhaust administrative
remedies); Rozagiriza v. Pepsi Co. Beverage, No. 25-04030, ECF No. 9 (D.S.D. Oct. 28,
Case 2:25-cv-13096-LJM-CI ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

4
2025) (dismissing pro se plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims after plaintiff
filed to file amended complaint with attached right-to-sue letter); Blount, 2025 U.S.
App. LEXIS 20888, at *1–2 (affirming screening dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s Title
VII and ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where plaintiff
failed to comply with district court’s order to produce copy of right-to-sue letter).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-13096-LJM-CI ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4