Menefee v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

Filing 85

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 83 Report and Recommendation, (2) Terminating Defendants' 67 Motion to Dismiss as Moot, and (3) Dismissing Complaint. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICO MENEFEE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23-cv-10024
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
KRISTIN MASON, et al.,

Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 83), (2) TERMINATING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 67) AS MOOT, AND
(3) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Rico Menefee is a former Michigan state prisoner who at all relevant
times was in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”).
In this action, Menefee claims that several MDOC employees violated his First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.)
On March 29, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Menefee’s claims.
(See Mot., ECF No. 67.) On that same day, the Magistrate Judge issued an order
requiring Menefee to file a response to Defendants’ motion by no later than April
19, 2024. (See Order, ECF No. 68.) Menefee thereafter filed a motion to extend the
time for him to file a response (see Mot., ECF No. 70), and, on May 8, 2024, the

Magistrate Judge granted that motion in part and extended the time for Menefee to
respond until May 29, 2024. (See Order, ECF No. 74.) Menefee never filed a
response to Defendants’ motion by the extended deadline.

Accordingly, on

September 10, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered Menefee to show cause, in
writing, why the Court should not dismiss his Complaint for failure to prosecute.
(See Order, ECF No. 80.)
Menefee never filed a response to the Magistrate Judge’s September 10 show
cause order. Nor has he filed any response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Moreover, several orders that the Magistrate Judge sent to Menefee at the address
Menefee provided the Court, including the September 10 show cause order, have
since returned to the Court as undeliverable. (See ECF Nos. 81, 82, and 84.) That
suggests that the contact information Menefee provided the Court is no longer valid.
On October 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation in which she recommended that the Court (1) dismiss Menefee’s
Complaint for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders and
(2) terminate Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF
No. 83.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties
that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file
specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.704-705.)

2

Menefee has not filed any objections to the R&R. Nor has he contacted the
Court to ask for additional time to respond. 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, (6th Cir. 1987)
(explaining that where party fails to file “timely objections” to report and
recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “without expressing any
view on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). In addition, the failure to file
objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, because Menefee has failed to file any objections to the R&R,
and because he has failed to provide the Court valid contact information,1 IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss
Menefee’s Complaint and terminate Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot is
ADOPTED.

1

Local Rule 11.2 requires a party to file a notice with the Clerk of the Court if the
party’s mailing address and/or other contact information changes. See E.D. Mich.
Local Rule 11.2. The failure to comply with this requirement is not a mere technical
violation of the rules. Without a current address or accurate contact information for
Menefee, the Court has no way of administering this civil action.
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Menefee’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is
DISMISSED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 67) is TERMINATED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 7, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 7, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4