Ludwick v. Clinton, County of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHEALA MICHELLE LUDWICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLINTON, COUNTY OF, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-320
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
This is civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which Plaintiff Michaela
Ludwick alleges a violation of her constitutional rights during her detention at a county jail arising
from an alleged failure to recognize or treat her “Xanax withdrawal,” among other allegations (see
generally Compl., ECF No. 1). Now pending is a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No.
31) recommending that the Court dismiss Defendant Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc.
(“ACH”), from this case given Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her claims against Defendant ACH.
Plaintiff has filed both a Response in Opposition to the Report and Recommendation and an
Amended Objection modifying that response (see ECF Nos. 33 and 34). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and F ED . R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court reviews de novo those portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. 	For the reasons stated in
greater detail below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s response and objections, adopt the Report and
Recommendation as the Order of the Court, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ACH,
and terminate Defendant ACH from the case.
Case 1:25-cv-00320-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 1
of 5

2
Plaintiff initiated this action on March 23, 2025 (see Compl., ECF No. 1; R&R, ECF No.
31 at PageID.157). Plaintiff failed to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—and several
instructions from the Magistrate Judge—regarding service of Defendant ACH, even after repeated
warnings that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute (see R&R, ECF
No. 31). The Court extended the relevant deadline for service of Defendant ACH for almost seven
months after Plaintiff initiated this action—until October 3, 2025 (see id.). Plaintiff missed this
deadline and approximately two weeks later, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and
Recommendation at bar recommending dismissal. See id. (stating this matter should be dismissed
“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 orders of this Court”). 	The Magistrate Judge placed Plaintiff on
notice that “[t]imely objections to this Report and Recommendation shall be considered Plaintiff’s
opportunity to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed” (see id.).
Neither of Plaintiff’s responses to the Report and Recommendation “specifically identify”
the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which they apply, violating this Court’s rules.
See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b); Miller v. William Beaumont Hosp., 121 F.4th 556, 558 (6th Cir.
2024) (noting that a district court’s “local rules carry the force of law”). 	Neither of Plaintiff’s
responses shows cause for Plaintiff’s failures to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court’s repeated Orders, or applicable local rules (see generally ECF Nos. 33 and 34). Neither of
Plaintiff’s responses attaches an attorney declaration to verify supporting documents or even
attempts to cite Sixth Circuit or persuasive authority indicating that the Court should not dismiss
the claims at issue (see id.). Instead, over a month after the extended deadline to effectuate service,
Plaintiff “requests the opportunity to complete service by the most recent Certified mailings to the
Registered Agent of ACH” because “Plaintiff anticipates that service will be perfected on at least
Case 1:25-cv-00320-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 2
of 5

3
one of the three people qualified to accept service on behalf of ACH” (see Am. Obj., ECF No. 34
at PageID.186–187). The Court will assume arguendo that Plaintiff’s responses preserve a general
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court dismiss the claims against
Defendant ACH, despite Plaintiff’s waiver under Court rules. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b).
“A federal court may sua sponte dismiss a case [or claims against certain parties] for failure
to prosecute or comply with an order.” See Steward v. City of Jackson, 8 F. App’x 294, 296 (6th
Cir. 2001) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)); FED. R. C IV. P. 41(b) (stating
that failure to prosecute may result in dismissal of an entire “action” brought against a defendant
or “any claim against it”). 	Under the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), the Court should consider four factors in determining whether to dismiss claims:
(1) “whether the party’s failure to cooperate is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault;” (2) “whether
the adversary was prejudiced by the dilatory conduct of the party;” (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 before dismissal was ordered.” 	Fuller v. Gerth, 468 F.
App’x 587, 588 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Mulbah v. Detroit Bd., 261 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2001));
accord Jackson v. Coronado, No. 21-1007, 2021 WL 6335259, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2021).
“While none of these factors is dispositive, a case may be dismissed by a district court where there
is a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” Mulbah, 261 F.3d
at 591 (collecting Sixth Circuit cases). These factors clearly support dismissal with prejudice here.
First, Plaintiff’s repeated failures to timely comply with multiple Orders regarding service
of Defendant ACH establish both “fault” and “willfulness.” 	See Fuller, 468 F. App’x at 588;
Orders, ECF Nos. 7, 9, 15, 23, 24, 31; Jackson, 2021 WL 6335259 at *2 (memorializing the Sixth
Circuit’s conclusion that failure to comply with multiple court orders “reflects bad faith on [a
Case 1:25-cv-00320-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 3
of 5

4
plaintiff’s] part, further justifying dismissal”). Second, the Sixth Circuit has stated on analogous
facts that if a plaintiff’s conduct prevents “proceedings from going forward,” defendants suffer
“some prejudice on account of [that] conduct.” See Jackson, 2021 WL 6335259 at *2. Plaintiff
does not dispute that she has caused months of delay by failing to comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, local rules, and multiple Court Orders. See id.; cf. Response, ECF No. 33 at
PageID.177 (“Plaintiff acknowledges that service issues have been problematic[.]”). 	Third, the
Magistrate Judge repeatedly warned Plaintiff that “failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal.”
See Fuller, 468 F. App’x at 588; Orders, ECF No. 9, 15, 23, 31. Fourth, “having considered all
possible and lesser sanctions . . . the Court determines that the dismissal with prejudice” of
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ACH is “warranted” under Rule 41(b), particularly given that
the Sixth Circuit “has ‘never held that a district court is without power to dismiss [a plaintiff’s
claims], as the first and only sanction, solely on the basis of the plaintiff's counsel’s neglect’ and
is ‘loathe to require the district court to incant a litany of the available lesser sanctions.’” Presler
v. Cnty. of Newaygo, No. 1:21-CV-1066, 2023 WL 2139406, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2023)
(quoting Dudley El v. Michigan Dep’t of Corr., No. 17-2288, 2018 WL 5310761, at *3 (6th Cir.
May 23, 2018) (cleaned up)); accord Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t, 529 F.3d 731, 738
(6th Cir. 2008) (noting that because Rule 41(b) dismissal is “a tool to effect management of [a
district court’s] docket and [avoid] unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and opposing
parties,” a district court enjoys “substantial discretion in serving these tasks”). 1
1 	The Court also concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to offer adequate argument or authority in
response to the Magistrate Judge’s Order to Show Cause provides an independently sufficient basis
for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant ACH with prejudice. 	See W.D.Mich.
LCivR 41.1 (“A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown . . . the presiding judge may enter
an order of dismissal with or without prejudice[.]”); compare R&R, ECF No. 31 at PageID.158
Case 1:25-cv-00320-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 4
of 5

5
In sum, Plaintiff’s arguments fail to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or to show good cause for why the Court should not dismiss the claims against
Defendant ACH for failure to prosecute.
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response and Objections (ECF Nos. 33 and
34) are DENIED and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (ECF No. 39) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant ACH is TERMINATED from this case.
Dated: December 23, 2025
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
(“Timely 	objections 	to 	this 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	shall 	be 	considered 	Plaintiff’s
opportunity to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed.”) with Responses, ECF Nos.
33 and 34) (failing to cite applicable authorities, attach an attorney declaration authenticating
supporting documents, or otherwise show good cause for Plaintiff’s failures to timely serve);
Miller, 121 F.4th at 558 (noting that a district court’s “local rules carry the force of law”). The
Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the reasons stated above. See id.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00320-JMB-SJB ECF No. 41, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/23/25 Page 5
of 5