Russell v. Lansing, City of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM ALBERT RUSSELL,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Robert J. Jonker
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00977
CITY OF LANSING, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that this action
be dismissed with 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 against (1) the City of Lansing, (2) the Lansing Code
Compliance Department, (3) the Lansing Police Department, (4) Officer Christopher
Mosby, and (5) Unknown Parties comprised of “unidentified code officers.” (ECF No. 1,
PageID.3). On November 10, 2025, Defendants Lansing Code Compliance Department,
Lansing Police Department, City of Lansing, and Christopher Mosby moved to dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 8). On January 28, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
respond to Defendants’ motion “no later than 21 days” from the date of the Order. (ECF
No. 10). The Order further stated that, “[i]n the event Plaintiff fails to timely comply
with this Order, the undersigned will consider any opposition to Defendants’ motions
Case 1:25-cv-00977-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 1
of 4

-2-
waived and will, accordingly, recommend that Defendants’ motion be granted.” (ECF
No. 10, PageID.233). The Order was returned to the Court on February 9, 2026, as
“Return to Sender” and remailed to Plaintiff’s new address. (ECF No. 11). The second
copy was again returned to the Court on March 9, 2026, as “Return to Sender.” (ECF
No. 12). Nearly a month has passed since the Court’s February 18, 2026 deadline to
respond to Defendants’ motion, and Plaintiff has failed to comply.
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). These factors weigh in favor of dismissal
Case 1:25-cv-00977-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 2
of 4

-3-
here. Notably, Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond and comply with the Court’s
order would result in the Court granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10,
PageID.233).
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 his current mailing address. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Plaintiff’s conduct unfairly
prejudices Defendants’ ability to defend against Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) be granted. For the same reasons the
undersigned makes these recommendations, the undersigned further recommends
that an appeal of this matter by Plaintiff would not be in good faith. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
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).
Case 1:25-cv-00977-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 3
of 4

-4-
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March 17, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00977-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/17/26 Page 4
of 4