Ruiz v. Gottlieb

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SERENA RUIZ,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-382
BRIAN GOTTLIEB,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that this action
be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute and to comply with the Court’s orders.
I. Background
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 5, 2026, against Brian Gottlieb. (ECF
No. 1). On February 5, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an amended
application to proceed in forma pauperis within 21 days on the correct form. (ECF
No. 4). The Order was returned to the Court on February 24, 2026, and the Notice of
Receipt of Case (ECF No. 3) was returned to the Court on February 26, 2026, as “Unable
to Forward” and “Return to Sender,” respectively. (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Several weeks
have passed since the Court’s February 26, 2026 deadline to submit an amended
application, and Plaintiff has failed to comply.
Case 1:26-cv-00382-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 1
of 3

2
II. Analysis
“The 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 therein. 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).
Further, 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.” W.D. MICH. LCIVR 41.1. On two separate occasions, items that the
Court attempted to mail to Plaintiff were returned because Plaintiff has failed to provide
the Court with her current mailing address. (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Plaintiff’s conduct
unfairly prejudices Defendant’s ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims.
Case 1:26-cv-00382-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with
prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that this
action be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to
comply with the Court’s orders.
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).
Dated: March 17, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00382-PLM-PJG ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 3
of 3