Lopez v. Ramseur

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
SCARLETT LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAKOTA RAMSEUR,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 2:26-cv-8
HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on January 9, 2026. 	On January 22, 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 the Plaintiff was returned to the Court marked “no such number” and “unable to forward” (ECF
No. 8). A review of the court records for this case reflects that another document mailed to the
Plaintiff, the Notice of Receipt of Case, was also returned to the Court marked “no such number”
and “unable to forward” (ECF No. 7).
Even though the 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 the Plaintiff at her 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
Case 2:26-cv-00008-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 1
of 3

2
Recommendation in the mail to the 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 the 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. 6) is
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons stated
in the Report and Recommendation.
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 2:26-cv-00008-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 2
of 3

3
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Order.
Dated: February 9, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00008-PLM-MV ECF No. 9, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 3
of 3