Boardman v. Coy

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT BOARDMAN,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 2:24-cv-10685
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
v. 	Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
CHARLIE COY,
Defendant.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF NO. 28) AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Plaintiff Robert Boardman (“Boardman”), a prisoner of the Michigan
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), brought this pro se civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Charlie Coy used excessive force
against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See generally ECF No. 1.
This 	matter 	was 	originally 	before 	the 	Honorable 	Sean 	F. 	Cox 	and
reassigned to the undersigned on April 2, 2024. 	On September 13, 2024, this
Court referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. ECF
No. 13. Judge Stafford has issued several orders that were mailed to Boardman
at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility and later returned as undeliverable. See
Case 2:24-cv-10685-BRM-EAS ECF No. 29, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 3

2
ECF Nos 23, 24, 25, 27. 	The MDOC website indicates that Boardman was
paroled on September 3, 2025. 	However, Boardman was informed of his
responsibility to notify the Court of an address change, or risk dismissal of his
action for failure to do so. ECF No. 6.
The Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why This Case
Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute by October 21, 2025, to which
Boardman did not respond. 	ECF No. 26. 	Consequently, on October 22, 2025,
Judge Stafford issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that
the undersigned dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2, and/or
pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 11.2 for failure to notify the court of an address change.
Plaintiff has not filed anything on the docket since January of 2025, and has
apparently been paroled or over two months. 	The Court will assume that his
inaction indicates his intent to abandon his case. Therefore, the Court agrees that
dismissal is the only option.
At the end of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that to seek
review of her recommendation, they had to file specific objections with the Court
within 14 days of service of the R&R. 	Id. at PageID.411-412. As of the date of
this order—29 days since the Magistrate Judge filed the R&R—none of the parties
have filed objections to the R&R or contacted the Court to ask for more time to
Case 2:24-cv-10685-BRM-EAS ECF No. 29, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 3

3
file objections. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty
to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);
see also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 957-58 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that a
party’s failure to object to a report and recommendation timely allows a court to
accept the recommendation “without expressing any views on the merits of the
magistrate’s conclusions”). 	Similarly, failure to object to an R&R forfeits any
further right to appeal. 	See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019)
(recognizing that a party forfeits their right to appeal by failing to file objections
to an R&R timely).
Accordingly, because no objections to the R&R have been filed, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of
dismissal is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 26) and
failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and E.D. Mich. LR 41.2.
This is a final order that closes the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2025 	s/Brandy R. McMillion
Hon. Brandy R. McMillion
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-10685-BRM-EAS ECF No. 29, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 3