Beasley #615584 v. Powell et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRAVONTAE E. BEASLEY #615584,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH POWELL, et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 1:25-cv-146
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before me is Defendant Powell’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of prosecution. (ECF
No. 25.) For the following reasons, I recommend that the Court GRANT the motion and dismiss
this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
Plaintiff filed this action on February 7, 2025, while he was incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC), and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF
No. 1.) The order granting pauper status provided:
Plaintiff must keep the Court apprised of his current address and shall notify the
Court within ten days when his mailing address changes. Local Civil Rule 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.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 41.1.
(ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff was paroled from the MDOC on January 6, 2026, but did not update his address
as required by ECF No. 4.1 On January 28, 2026, pursuant to the Amended Case Management
Order (ECF No. 21), Defendant served a notice for Plaintiff’s deposition on Plaintiff at his address
1 Michigan Department of Corrections, Offender Tracking Information System, profile Travontae
Beasley #615584 (last accessed 02/23/2026),
https://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=615584.
Case 1:25-cv-00146-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/15/26 Page 1
of 4

2
on file with the Court, i.e., the Ionia Correctional Facility located at 1576 W. Bluewater Highway,
Ionia, MI 48846, on January 28, 2026. (ECF No. 24.) On February 12, 2026, the date noticed for
Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff failed to appear because he had been paroled. (ECF No. 26-3.)
Defendant filed the instant motion on February 23, 2026. On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed
a change of address. (ECF No. 28.) On March 5, 2026, I ordered Defendant to serve a copy of the
motion on Plaintiff at his updated address and gave Plaintiff 14 days from the date of service of
the motion to respond. (ECF No. 29.) The same day, Defendant served a copy of the motion on
Plaintiff (ECF No. 30), and the Clerk mailed a copy of the March 5, 2026 Order to Plaintiff. On
March 20, 2026, the Clerk docketed an unsigned letter from Plaintiff requesting that his deposition
be rescheduled. (ECF No. 31.) He explained that his release from custody with the MDOC “created
circumstances that prevented my attendance due to being unable to successfully update my
records.” (Id.) Plaintiff said that he “made immediate efforts to update []his information,” but “due
to procedural requirements” he was unable to complete his change of address until he was able to
visit the federal building in person.” (Id.) On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a signature page for his
letter. (ECF No. 34.) On April 28, 2026, I directed Defendant to reply to Plaintiff’s response, which
the Clerk had docketed as a motion to reschedule deposition. (ECF No. 35.) Defendant filed his
reply on May 1, 2026. (ECF No. 38.)
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 1:25-cv-00146-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/15/26 Page 2
of 4

3
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 action 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 March 4, 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.)
Plaintiff’s vague excuses in his response are unpersuasive. He fails to explain how his
release from custody on parole hindered his ability to attend his deposition or to update his records
timely. If anything, Plaintiff had fewer restrictions and plenty of options, including sending a letter
to the Court notifying it of his change of address, sending a letter to defense counsel providing the
same information, calling the Clerk’s office (which would have resulted in an instruction to send
a written change of address), or attempting to call defense counsel. Plaintiff could have done any
of these things—in addition to visiting the Clerk’s office in person—within ten days of his release.
Yet, he waited almost two months before doing anything. In the interim, Defendant and counsel
wasted time and resources to defend Plaintiff’s case.
These are willful failures by Plaintiff that prejudice Defendant’s ability to defend against
Plaintiff’s claims and hinder the Court’s ability to effectively manage its docket.
Case 1:25-cv-00146-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/15/26 Page 3
of 4

4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice
for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
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).
Dated: May 15, 2026 /s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00146-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 39, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/15/26 Page 4
of 4