Harris v. Kent, County of et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHAMARRI HARRIS,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00794
KENT COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendants violated his due-process
rights, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 15). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Defendant Deputy John Doe be
dismissed without prejudice.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 16, 2025. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff later
amended his complaint, listing an unknown party as Deputy John Doe. (ECF No. 15,
PageID.119). To date, Plaintiff has failed to serve Deputy John Doe, and the deadline
for service has passed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). On May 26, 2026, this Court issued
a Show Cause Order, requiring Plaintiff to explain why his claims against Deputy John
Case 1:25-cv-00794-JMB-PJG ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/22/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Doe should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). (ECF No. 61).
Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Show Cause Order.
An unidentified defendant listed in a complaint is not a party to a lawsuit.
“ Rather, ‘Doe defendants are routinely used as stand-ins for real parties until discovery
permits the intended defendants to be installed.’ ” Travis v. Whitmer, No. 1:23-CV-830,
2025 WL 2469263, at *2 (W.D. Mich. July 28, 2025) (quoting Hindes v. FDIC, 137 F.3d
148, 155 (3rd Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted)), R&R adopted, No.
1:23-CV-830, 2025 WL 2466626 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2025). “The failure to identify and
serve a Doe defendant constitutes failure to prosecute and warrants a dismissal of that
defendant.” Id. (citing Saucier v. Camp Brighton Prison, No. 13-15077, 2016 WL
11468926 at *3 (April 26, 2016), R&R adopted, 2016 WL 3251761 (E.D. Mich. June 14,
2016). Here, Plaintiff has not identified or served Defendant Deputy John Doe.
Plaintiff cannot maintain claims against the unserved and unidentified Deputy John
Doe, and this Court should DISMISS without prejudice this Defendant.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that Defendant
Deputy John Doe be dismissed without prejudice. For the same reasons the
undersigned makes these recommendations, the undersigned finds that an appeal of
such would be frivolous and not made in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
Case 1:25-cv-00794-JMB-PJG ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/22/26 Page 2
of 3

3
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen 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).
Respectfully submitted,
Date: June 22, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00794-JMB-PJG ECF No. 65, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/22/26 Page 3
of 3