Johnson #937143 v. Graham et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AQUARIUS JOHNSON #937143,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRAKE AUBREY GRAHAM, et al.,
Defendants.
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Case No. 1:25-cv-00597
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was filed by a prisoner proceeding pro se on May 27, 2025, alleging claims of
copyright infringement under 17 USC § 101. Plaintiff paid the filing fee on June 20, 2025.
Summonses were issued and mailed to Plaintiff on July 1, 2025. A notice of impending dismissal
entered on September 3, 2025, warning that failure to execute service by September 29, 2025,
would result in the dismissal of the case. (ECF No. 8.) Although Plaintiff failed to notify the court
of his change of address, based on a June 20, 2025 filing (ECF No. 7), the Clerk’s office belatedly
identified that Plaintiff had been transferred to another facility. As such, summonses reissued on
September 3, 2025, and were mailed to Plaintiff.
On September 19, 2025, Plaintiff responded to the notice of impending dismissal and
requested an extension of time to execute service. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) The request was granted and
service was extended to December 29, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff has failed to execute service
on defendants.
As such, the undersigned hereby recommends that this matter be dismissed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to timely effect service and/or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
and W.D. Mich. LCivR 41.1 for want of prosecution and failure to comply with the rules and
Case 1:25-cv-00597-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/09/26 Page 1
of 2

2
orders of this court. 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 9, 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-00597-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/09/26 Page 2
of 2