Ventura v. Vella-Marrone et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BEN VENTURA,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRAN VELLA-MARRONE, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1461
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint on May 4, 2026. On May 21, 2026,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the action be
dismissed upon initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	The Report and
Recommendation mailed to Plaintiff was returned to the Court marked “return to sender”,
“insufficient address”, and “unable to forward”. 	The Court records reveal that two other
documents issued by the Court and mailed to Plaintiff have been retuned to the court marked in a
similar manner (ECF Nos. 6 and 7).
Even though Plaintiff has not received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff
has been properly served under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As required by statute, the
magistrate judge filed the Report and Recommendation with the Court and mailed a copy to
Plaintiff at his last known address. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“The magistrate judge shall file
his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph (B) with the court and a copy
shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.”). Upon placing the Report and Recommendation in the
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 1
of 3

2
mail to Plaintiff’s last known address, service was complete. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff
has a continuing obligation to apprise the Court of his current address. See W.D. Mich. L.Civ.R.
41.1 (“Failure of a plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of his current address shall be grounds for
dismissal for want of prosecution.”); see also White v. City of Grand Rapids, 34 F. App’x 210, 211
(6th Cir. 2022) (affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit that occurred in part because the plaintiff
“failed to keep the district court apprised of his current address”).
After being served with a Report and Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge, a
party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984
(6th Cir. 2005). Failure to file an objection results in a waiver of the issue and the issue cannot be
appealed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (upholding the Sixth Circuit’s practice). No
objections have been filed to date.
Although Plaintiff’s failure to file objections is a sufficient reason to adopt the Report and
Recommendation, this Court has reviewed the merits of the report and finds the magistrate judge’s
reasoning and conclusions sound. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that an appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,
114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
206, 211-12 (2007).
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 2
of 3

3
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.
Dated: June 17, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01461-PLM-MV ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/17/26 Page 3
of 3